Urogenital function in robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted comparative laparoscopic surgery in lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

A meta-analysis was conducted on the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer. There are few articles and reports on this topic, and a lack of high-quality research results in unreliable research conclusions. This study includes prospective and retrospective studies to obtain more reliable findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases were searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The search was conducted from the time of database construction to March 2024. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the NOS scoring system. Meta-analysis was performed using R language software. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Six relevant literatures that met the criteria were finally included, and 652 patients were included, including 316 (48.5%) in the robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (RLLND) and 336 (51.5%) in the laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (LLLND). Analysis of the results showed that compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less mean intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 22, 95% CI - 40.03 to - 3.97, P < 0.05), longer operative time (MD = 51.57, 95%CI 7.69 to 95.45, P < 0.05), and a shorter mean hospital stay (MD = - 1.25, 95%CI - 2.46 to - 0.05, P < 0.05), a low rate of urinary complications (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.64, P < 0.01), a low overall rate of postoperative complications (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.87, P < 0.01), and a high number of lateral lymph node dissection (MD = 1.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.23, P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative anastomotic leakage, postoperative intestinal obstruction, and total number of lymph nodes obtained (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laparoscopy, robotic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, shortens the average length of hospital stay, reduces urologic complications, decreases overall postoperative complications, and collects more lateral lymph nodes. However, the surgical time is prolonged.

Urinary and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of the study was to compare the protective effects of robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) on urinary and sexual function of patients. We conducted a systematic search in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies comparing the impact of RRCS and LRCS on urinary function and sexual function. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the Female Sexual Function Index(FSFI) were used to evaluate the urinary function and sexual function of patients. A total of 13 studies comprising 1964 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 3 randomized controlled trials, 5 retrospective cohort studies, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 2 propensity score-matched studies. Nine hundred and fifty-nine patients underwent RRCS and 1005 patients underwent LRCS. Statistical analysis of the IPSS scores indicated urinary function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively [mean difference (MD), - 1.06, 95% CI - 1.85 to - 0.28; and MD, - 0.96, 95% CI - 1.60 to - 0.32; and MD, - 1.09, 95% CI - 1.72 to - 0.46]. Statistical analysis of the IIEF-5 scores indicated male sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 1.76, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.72; and MD, 1.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.33; and MD, 1.05, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.01). Statistical analysis of the FSFI scores indicated female sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 2.86; 95% CI 1.38 to 4.35; and MD, 4.19; 95% CI 1.85 to 6.54). RRCS is more favorable than LRCS in preserving the urinary and sexual function of patients with rectal cancer.

Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes

Anatomical and physiological differences exist between sex, leading to variations in how diseases, such as rectal cancer, are prevalence and treatment outcomes of diseases including rectal cancer. In particular, in the case of rectal cancer, anatomical differences may be associated with surgical challenges, and these factors are believed to be important contributors to potential disparities in postoperative recovery, associated complications, and oncological outcomes between male and female patients. However, there is still ongoing debate regarding this matter. Significantly, the male pelvic anatomy is distinguished by its narrower dimensions, which can present surgical challenges and impede visual access during operative procedures, rendering it more complex than surgical interventions in the female pelvis. As a result, this anatomical difference leads to a greater occurrence of postoperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage. Moreover, the pelvis houses nerves that are vital for urinary and genital functions, underscoring the need to assess the potential risks of sexual and urinary dysfunction in rectal cancer surgery. These postoperative complications can significantly impact the quality of life; therefore, it is imperative to perform surgery with an understanding of the structural differences between sexes. Therefore, to address the limitations imposed by anatomical structures, new approaches such as robotic surgery, trans-anal total mesorectal excision, and intraoperative neuromonitoring are being introduced. Furthermore, it is essential to conduct research into fundamental mechanisms that may give rise to differences in surgical outcomes and oncological results between sexes. By comprehending the disparities between males and females, we can advance toward personalized treatments. Consequently, this review outlines variations in surgical approaches, complications, and treatments for rectal cancer in male and female patients.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: The myth of reinventing the wheel

Background & Objective

To review oncological outcomes of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (LAP-ELAPE) for low rectal cancer.In locally advanced low rectal cancer, ELAPE which is en-bloc resection of levator muscles along with the tumor in a prone position has significantly decreased the rate of having either positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or tumor perforation. The aim of the study was to determine the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (LAP-ELAPE) for low rectal cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study was performed at Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital and Research Centre Lahore. Patients who underwent ELAPE for low rectal and anal cancer from January 2014 to December 2019 were selected. Data was collected using an electronic database through a hospital information system.

Results

A total of 82 patients were included in the study having a median age of 39 years. Clinically preoperative tumor sizes were T2:2, T3:65, T4:15. Neo-adjuvant chemo radiotherapy was administered to 79 (96.3%) patients. Pathologically tumor sizes were T0:12, T2:15, T3:50, T4:5 with 79.2% (n=65) R0 resections. The mean operative time was 340.36±64.51 minutes and the mean blood loss was 99 milliliters. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.58±4.64 days. Seventeen (20.7%) cases had pathological circumferential resection margins positive (pCRM<1mm). However, tumor perforation was found in 8(9.8%) patients. Ninety days mortality was none while 36 patients experienced recurrence (local: 23, distant: 30, local + distant 17). The median survival time was 53.00±2.69 months.

Conclusion

For locally advanced low rectal cancer, ELAPE has evolved as a safe oncological procedure with acceptable outcomes.

Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Scarce research has reported the comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in mid-low rectal cancer. Therefore, this meta-analysis is aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two surgical approaches.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was performed for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The outcomes of interest acquired from eight articles included three aspects: intraoperative conditions, postoperative status of patients, and complications. All data (robotic = 1350 patients, laparoscopic = 1330 patients) enrolled were analyzed using Rev Man 5.4.

RESULTS

Compared to the laparoscopic group, the robotic group indicated a noticeable superiority in estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), number of lymph nodes dissected (P = 0.004), time to first flatus (P = 0.001), time to first fluid diet (P = 0.001), hospital stay (P < 0.0001), conversion (P = 0.009), and urinary retention (P = 0.0006), but devoted much more operation time (P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was associated with superiority over laparoscopic surgery in increasing surgical safety, accelerating postoperative recovery, and reducing complications, which suggested that robotic surgery could be a safe and effective method for treating mid-low rectal cancer.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of long-term survival and urogenital functional outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgical technology has been widely introduced and applied in various fields of surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze long-term oncological and urogenital functional outcomes following laparoscopic/robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We identified studies that compared oncological and functional outcomes following laparoscopic TME (LTME) and robotic TME (RTME) for treatment of rectal cancer over the past 16 years. Data related to overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) were subjected to meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There was no difference in long-term OS and DFS in the pooled data. Compared with LTME, there were significant differences in the score of IPSS at 3, 6 and 12 months for RTME, in the pooled data for male patients. There were significant differences in IIEF score for male patients at 3 and 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LTME, RTME has better preservation of urinary and sexual functions and comparable long-term oncological outcome in rectal cancer.

Operative and oncological outcomes after robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery, show little difference in clinical outcomes to justify the expense. We systematically reviewed and pooled evidence from studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection.

METHOD

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), and Cochrane databases were searched for studies between 1996 and 2021 comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgeries involving total mesorectal excision. Outcome measures included operative times, conversions to open, complications, recurrence and survival rates.

RESULTS

Fifty eligible studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections; three were randomized trials. Pooled results showed significantly longer operating times for robotic surgery but lower conversion and complications rates, shorter lengths of stay in hospital, better rates of complete mesorectal resection and better three-year overall survival. However, the low number of randomized studies makes most data subject to bias.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence supports the safety and ongoing use of robotic rectal cancer surgery, while further high-quality evidence is sought to justify the expense.

Patient-Related Functional Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Rectal Surgery Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained significant momentum in rectal cancer surgery. Most studies focus on short-term and oncological outcomes, showing similar outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Increasing survivorship mandates greater emphasis on quality of life and long-term function.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare quality of life and urinary, sexual, and lower GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgeries.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials Register, and Cochrane Library-identified articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic rectal resections was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures were quality of life and urinary, sexual, and GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection patient groups. Where comparable data were available, results were pooled for analysis.

RESULTS

The initial search revealed 1777 papers; 101 were reviewed in full, and 14 studies were included for review. Eleven assessed male sexual function; 7 favored robotic surgery, and the remaining studies showed no significant difference. Pooled analysis of 5 studies reporting rates of male sexual dysfunction at 12 months showed significantly lower rates after robotic surgery (OR, 0.51; p = 0.043). Twelve studies compared urinary function. Six favored robotic surgery, but in 2 studies, a difference was seen at 6 months but not sustained at 12 months. Pooled analysis of 4 studies demonstrated significantly better urinary function scores at 12 months after robotic surgery (OR, 0.26; p = 0.016). Quality of life and GI function were equivalent, but very little data exist for these parameters.

LIMITATIONS

A small number of studies compare outcomes between these groups; only 2 are randomized. Different scoring systems limit comparisons and pooling of data.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available data suggest that robotic rectal cancer resection improves male sexual and urinary functions when compared with laparoscopy, but there is no difference in quality of life or GI function. Future studies should report all facets of functional outcomes using standardized scoring systems.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Robotic surgery contributes to the preservation of bowel and urinary function after total mesorectal excision: comparisons with transanal and conventional laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Determine whether robotic surgery is more effective than transanal and conventional laparoscopic surgery in preserving bowel and urinary function after total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

Of 79 lower rectal cancer patients who underwent function-preserving TME between 2016 and 2020, 64 patients consented to a prospective questionnaire-based functional observation study (52 responded). At 6 months post-resection or ileostomy closure, Wexner, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), modified fecal incontinence quality of life, and international prostate symptom scores were used to evaluate bowel and urinary function, comparing robotic surgery (RTME) with transanal (taTME) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (LTME).

RESULTS

RTME was performed in 35 patients (54.7%), taTME in 15 (23.4%), and LTME in 14 (21.9%). While preoperative bowel/urinary functions were similar in all three procedures, and the distance from the anal verge to tumor was almost the same, more hand-sewn anastomoses were performed and the anastomotic height from the anal verge was shorter in taTME than RTME. At 2 years post-resection, 8 patients (12.5%) had a permanent stoma; RTME showed a significantly lower rate of permanent stoma than taTME (2.9% vs. 40%, p < 0.01). Despite no significant difference, all bowel function assessments were better in RTME than in taTME or LTME. Major LARS was observed in all taTME and LTME cases, but only 78.8% of RTME. No clear difference arose between RTME and taTME in urinary function; urinary dysfunction was more severe in LTME than RTME (36.4% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In function-preserving TME for lower rectal cancer, robotic surgery was suggested to be more effective than transanal and conventional laparoscopic surgery in terms of bowel and urinary functions.

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND

The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique.

DESIGN

This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.

SETTINGS

The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin.

RESULTS

A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group.

LIMITATIONS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS.

ANTECEDENTES

No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica.

OBJETIVO

Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica.

DISEO

Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión.

AJUSTES

El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados.

PACIENTES

Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017.

INTERVENCIONES

Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo.

RESULTADOS

Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo.

LIMITACIONES

Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación.

CONCLUSIONES

La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

When Does Da Vanci Robotic Surgical Systems Come Into Play?

The emergent of medical science and technology has risen the minimally invasive surgery. Da Vinci Robotic Surgical Systems (RSS) is the trend at present. Compared with the past surgical methods, many studies related to RSS tend to explore postoperative outcomes and quality of life or compare the advantages and disadvantages than the other surgery. Few studies to understand the patients' willing who use RSS. This study mainly explores the patients' willingness and adopts the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the theoretical foundation, and appended the trust concept to discuss. The study was a retrospective study and used a structured questionnaire to conduct a survey. The subjects included the patients with single-disease who had used RSS in a Medical Center of Southern Taiwan but excluded the patients with multiple disorder. This study conducted SPSS 22.0 and Smart PLS 2.0 software for statistical analysis, which included descriptive statistical analysis and applied Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis to test the research model and to examine the established hypotheses. A total of 136 cases were collected in this study. Study validation was tested. Trust positively affects Perceived Usefulness (β = 0.550) and Perceived Ease of Use (β = 0.300). Perceived Ease of Use positively affects Perceived Usefulness (β = 0.188). Perceived Usefulness positively affects Attitude Toward Using (β = 0.589. Attitude Toward Using positively affects Behavioral Intention (β = 0.446. The relationship between perceived Ease of Use and Attitude toward Using was insignificant. Additionally, the relationship between Perceived Usefulness and Behavioral Intention was insignificant. In the research results, we found that patients are mostly in the middle and high age groups, and if the patient himself feels that RSS is extremely helpful to his illness, the intensity of his choice of intention will be high. In comparison, the information related to RSS has been clearly known, it does not directly affect the selection intention. According to age, most of the choices of RSS is based on safety and risk considerations, and it is beneficial to the patient himself, but RSS is also more expensive. We recommended that the government consider ββ reimbursing the RSS process in health insurance programs to meet the needs and expectations of patients.

Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer

Utilization of robotic surgical systems has increased over the years. Robotic surgery is presumed to have advantages of enhanced visualization, improved dexterity, and reduced tremor, which is purported to be more suitable for rectal cancer surgery in a confined space than laparoscopic or open surgery. However, evidence supporting improved clinical and oncologic outcomes after robotic surgery remains controversial and limited despite the widespread adoption of robotic surgical systems. To date, numerous observational studies and a few randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate that short-term, oncological, and functional outcomes after a robotic surgery are superior to those of laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer patients. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on low-lying rectal cancer.

Potential benefit of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer on postoperative male sexual function

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the incidence of male sexual dysfunction after mid to low rectal cancer surgery and to identify factors associated with postoperative erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.

METHODS

The subjects were 410 consecutive male patients who underwent surgery for mid to low rectal cancer from 2009 to 2015. Two questionnaires on sexual function were administered: the International Index of Erectile Function, and an original questionnaire on ejaculatory status. Erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction were examined before and 3, 6, 12 months after surgery. In patients without preoperative dysfunction, multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the incidence of erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction at 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Of 410 patients, 234 (57%) gave complete responses to the questionnaires, of whom 108 (46%) and 155 (66%) had severe erectile dysfunction, while 115 (49%) and 168 (72%) had severe ejaculatory dysfunction before and 12 months after surgery, respectively. Of the patients who maintained sexual function preoperatively, the incidence of erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction at 12 months after surgery was 51% (64/126) and 49% (58/119), respectively. In multivariate analysis, age >60 years (P = 0.02), laparotomy (P = 0.002), and creation of a diverting ileostomy (P = 0.003) were independent factors associated with postoperative erectile dysfunction, while age >60 years (P = 0.005), laparotomy (P = 0.04), and lateral lymph node dissection (P = 0.001) were independent factors associated with postoperative ejaculatory dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Sexual dysfunction occurred in almost half of patients after rectal cancer surgery, and was independently associated with several factors, including laparotomy.

Prospective study of sexual function and analysis of risk factors after rectal cancer surgery

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the evolution of sexual function over time after rectal cancer surgery and to identify risk factors that may have an impact on the deterioration of postoperative function.

METHOD

This was a prospective cohort study of sexual function after rectal cancer surgery using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Predictive factors of worsening were identified by univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and one patients were included (56 men and 45 women). In men, the average IIEF showed decreased erectile function and intercourse satisfaction at 6 months (respectively 21.58 ± 7.18 to 16.60 ± 7.96, p = 0.002 and 10.87 ± 2.94, to 8.09 ± 4.45, p = 0.002) with recovery at 1 year. As a percentage, erectile dysfunction increased from the preoperative value to 6 months (64.5% vs 87.1%, p = 0.022) and was observed in 72% at 1 year. Patients with moderate to severe dysfunction increased from 22% preoperatively to 58% (p = 0.009) at 6 months and 44% at 1 year (p < 0.0001). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (OR 5.4, 95% CI 0.9-29.6; p = 0.041) and erectile worsening at 6 months (OR 20, 95% CI 1.6-238; p = 0.004) were independent factors for worse function at 6 or 12 months, respectively. No significant worsening of the FSFI was found, although there was an improvement in lubrication and orgasm.

CONCLUSION

Temporary deterioration of erectile function in men is common at 6 months after surgery and chemoradiotherapy is the only predictive factor. Furthermore, patients who remain dysfunctional show an increase in the severity of symptoms in relation to the preoperative period.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies

Background

RCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model.

Results

Fifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) –1.11 (95 per cent c.i. –1.86 to –0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD –0.28 (–1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively).

Conclusion

Results of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.

State of the art in robotic rectal surgery: marginal gains worth the pain?

After their first introduction in the 1990s to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, especially in confined spaces such as the pelvis, telemanipulators (i.e., master-slave manipulators) have gained popularity and acceptance among gastrointestinal surgeons. These complex, interventional surgical devices use multiple technologies, such as 3-D advanced imaging, tremor reduction and 7-degree movement. Superior instrument dexterity, stable precise vision and accessibility to narrow confined spaces make these devices well suited for colorectal surgery. The drive for innovations in the field of surgical robotics will leverage novel robots driven by data, image integration, and artificial intelligence. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be learned from the current literature and clinical trials. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established; increasing evidence suggests that when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery, robotic approaches might offer superior peri-operative outcomes. Notably, the marginal gains achieved with the use of robotics in rectal cancer surgery are linked with structured training and standardization of operative techniques. With decreasing costs and wider availability of new systems, it is foreseeable that robotic surgical systems will be an integral part of colorectal practice.

Long-term Voiding and Sexual Function in Male Patients After Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision With Autonomic Nerve Preservation for Rectal Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery can help to identify and preserve the autonomic nerves during total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with open surgery or laparoscopy due to the 3-dimensional image and high dexterity of the robotic system. Therefore, this study aimed to assess voiding and sexual function after robotic TME with autonomic nerve preservation. In particular, we focused on the long-term results in male patients operated by a single experienced surgeon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed male patients aged 50 years and below at the time of robotic rectal cancer surgery between November 2011 and July 2018. Patients who died and those who had a recurrence and underwent abdominoperineal resection were excluded. The questionnaire covered the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) for voiding and sexual function, respectively.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients (median age, 44 y) were surveyed. IPSS and IIEF-5 scores were 5.7±5.3 and 14.7±8.4, respectively. Only 6 patients (15.4%) complained of poor quality of life due to their urinary symptoms. In sexual function, 10 patients (25.6%) complained severe reduction compared with their preoperative status. The average of postoperative days defined from surgery to the questionnaire was 37.8 months. A significant change in the IIEF-5 score was observed between 1 and 2 years postoperatively (5.8±6.9 vs. 16.5±8.8; P=0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

As we only included male patients who were operated by a single experienced surgeon, the results of robotic TME with pelvic autonomic nerve preservation showed acceptable data in preserving both voiding and sexual functions. Although related clinical factors for poor functional outcomes was not statistically significant due to the small sample size, we could observe an improvement in sexual function between 1 and 2 years after surgery with long-term functional results.

Association between urinary function and resected pattern of the autonomic nerve system after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

AIM

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is expected to improve the quality of total mesorectal excision as well as preserve urinary function. We aimed to study the frequency and risk factors of urinary dysfunction in rectal cancer patients after TaTME. Moreover, we analysed the association between urinary function and resected pattern of the autonomic nerve system (ANS) in TaTME.

METHOD

We retrospectively analysed 231 patients who underwent TaTME at our hospital from 2013 to 2018. Independent risk factors for urinary dysfunction were assessed by multivariate analysis. Urinary dysfunction was defined as a condition that requires urethral catheterisation. We intraoperatively judged and classified the preserved or resected pattern of ANS into four categories.

RESULTS

The rate of urinary dysfunction after TaTME was 12.1% at discharge. Multivariate analysis revealed that beyond TME and ANS resection were the two major independent risk factors for urinary dysfunction. Total ANS preservation had reduced rates of urinary dysfunction, and all patients were free from catheterisation 6 months post-surgery. There was a higher rate of urinary dysfunction in total ANS resection than in partial ANS resection at 6 months post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that urinary function after TaTME was associated with resection of the ANS. Furthermore, the rate of urinary dysfunction and recovery time were closely related to the pattern of ANS resection.

Urological and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

This systematic review sought to compare the urogenital functions after laparoscopic (LAP) and robotic (ROB) surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies (n = 2709 for ROB, n = 2720 for LAP) were included. There was a lower risk of 30-day urinary retention in the ROB group (risk ratios 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.99), but the long-term risk was comparable (p = 0.460). Meta-regression showed a small, positive relationship between age and risk of 30-day urinary retention in both the ROB (p = 0.034) and LAP groups (p = 0.004). The International Prostate Symptom Score was better in the ROB group at 3 months (mean difference [MD] -1.58, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.05). The International Index of Erectile Function score was better in the ROB group at 6 months (MD 4.06, 95% CI 2.38 - 5.74).

CONCLUSION

While robotics may improve urogenital function after rectal surgery, the quality of evidence is low based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Better Function With a Colonic J-Pouch or a Side-to-end Anastomosis?: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare the Complications, Functional Outcome, and Quality of Life in Patients With Low Rectal Cancer After a J-Pouch or a Side-to-end Anastomosis

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

We aimed to compare prospectively the complications and functional outcome of patients undergoing a J-Pouch (JP) or a side-to-end anastomosis (SE) for treatment of low rectal cancer at a 2-year time point after resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A multicenter study was conducted on patients with low rectal cancer who were randomized to receive either a JP or SE and were followed for 24 months utilizing SF-12 and FACT-C surveys to evaluate the quality of life (QOL). Fecal incontinence was evaluated using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). Bowel function, complications, and their treatments were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-eight patients (165 males) were randomized with 167 final eligible patients, 80 in the JP group and 87 in the SE group for evaluation. The mean age at surgery was 61 (range 29 to 82) years. The overall mean recurrence rate was 12 of 238, 5% and similar in both groups.

COMPLICATIONS

Overall, 37 of 190 (19%) patients reported complications, 14 of these were Clavien Dindo Grade 3b and 2 were 3a: leak 3 (2 JP,1 SE), fistula 4 (1 JP, 3 SE), small bowel obstruction 4 (3JP, 1 SE), stricture 4 (3 SE, 1 SA), pouch necrosis 2 (JP), and wound infection 5 (2 JP, 3 SE). QOL scores using either instrument between the 2 groups at 12 and 24 months were similar (P > 0.05). Bowel movements, clustering, and FISI scores were similar.

CONCLUSION

At time points of 1 and 2 years after a JP or a SE for low rectal cancer, QOL, functional outcome, and complications are comparable between the groups. Although choosing a particular procedure may depend on surgeon/patient choice or anatomical considerations at the time of surgery, SE functions similar to JP and may be chosen due to the ease of construction.

Clinical, oncological, and functional outcomes of Da Vinci (Xi)-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a prospective, controlled cohort study of 51 consecutive cases

PURPOSE

Despite the increasing use of telemanipulators in colorectal surgery, an additional benefit in terms of improved perioperative results is not proven. The aim of the study was to compare clinical, oncological, and functional results of Da Vinci (Xi)-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic (low) anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Monocenter, prospective, controlled cohort study with a 12-month follow-up of bladder and sexual function using the validated questionnaires International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were included (18, Da Vinci (Xi) assisted; 33, conventional laparoscopy). Conversion to an open approach was more common in the Da Vinci cohort (p = 0.012). In addition, surgery and resumption of a normal diet took longer in the robotic group (p = 0.005; p = 0.042). Surgical morbidity and oncological quality did not differ. There was no difference in most functional domains, except for worsened ability to orgasm (p = 0.047) and sexual satisfaction (p = 0.034) in women after conventional laparoscopy. Moreover, we found a higher rate of improved bladder function in the conventional laparoscopy group (p = 0.023) and less painful sexual intercourse among women in the robot-assisted group (p = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

In contrast to the ROLARR trial, a higher conversion rate was found in the robotic cohort, which may in part be explained by a learning curve effect. Nevertheless, the Da Vinci-assisted approach showed favorable results regarding sexual function.

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.

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.

Monopolar Electrosurgical Scissors Versus Harmonic Scalpel in Robotic Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Robot-assisted surgical techniques have been introduced in recent years as an alternative minimally invasive approach for colorectal surgery. In practice, we found that the monopolar electrosurgical scissors had its unique advantages in preservation of the pelvic autonomic nerves. We performed a retrospective review of short-term results between using monopolar electrosurgical scissors and harmonic scalpel in robotic anterior resection (using the da Vinci^® Surgical System) in rectal cancer patients. Method: Forty-six patients who underwent robotic anterior resection of rectal cancer from June 2016 to January 2018 were retrospectively analyzed and compared. Twenty-two cases underwent resection using monopolar electrosurgical scissors and 24 cases underwent resection using the harmonic scalpel. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, complications, and pathological results were compared between two groups. Results: There were not significantly different patient characteristics between the two groups. The mean operative time was lesser in the monopolar electrosurgical scissors group than in the inharmonic scalpel group [95.59 ± 21.44 minutes versus 81.45 ± 13.89 minutes, P < .01]. The mean estimated blood loss was lesser in the monopolar electrosurgical scissors group than in the inharmonic scalpel group [48.64 ± 19.35 mL versus 61.82 ± 24.23 mL, P = .03]. The complication rate was 18.2% in the monopolar electrosurgical scissors group and 16.7% in the harmonic scalpel group (P = .89). The mean time of postoperational urinary catheter was lesser in the monopolar electrosurgical scissors group [3.73 ± 1.16 days versus 4.59 ± 1.71 days, P = .02]. The day to first passing flatus [3.45 ± 0.80 days versus 3.59 ± 1.14 days, P = .67], feeding time [4.50 ± 1.00 days versus 4.05 ± 1.87 days, P = .35], hospital stay [8.18 ± 3.74 days versus 8.68 ± 3.44 days, P = .52], and the mean number of harvested lymph nodes of detection [13.59 ± 1.71 versus 13.77 ± 1.41, P = .67] were comparable between procedures. Conclusion: Monopolar electrosurgical scissors were used safely and effectively in robotic anterior resection of rectal cancer (using the da Vinci Surgical System). The use of monopolar electrosurgical scissors has benefits in performing blunt and sharp separation in narrow pelvic and cheaper hospitalization expenses.

Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Few studies have compared robotic and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) in rectal cancer. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of recently published studies to compare perioperative outcomes of ISR for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic ISR in patients with low rectal cancer. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Perioperative outcomes of interest included the rate of diverting stoma, open conversion rate, operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, and time to initiate the postoperative diet. Oncological outcomes included the number of retrieved lymph nodes, distal resection margin, proximal resection margin, circumferential resection margin, 3-year overall survival, 3-year disease-free survival, and local recurrence. Postoperative complications included overall complications, a Dindo-Clavien classification ≥ III, and anastomotic leakage. All outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

We included 5 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 510 patients undergoing 273 (53.5%) robotic ISR procedures and 237 (46.5%) laparoscopic ISR procedures. The robotic ISR group lower conversion rate, lower blood loss, and longer operation times than the laparoscopic group. We also noted that fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the robotic ISR group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Other outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic and laparoscopic ISR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and 3-year oncologic outcomes; however, robotic ISR was associated with a lower conversion rate and less blood loss despite longer operation times compared to laparoscopic ISR. These findings suggest that robotic ISR maybe a safe and effective technique for treating low rectal cancer in selected patients. The potential oncologic and functional benefits of robotic ISR should be evaluated in larger randomized controlled trials.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis

Background

Urogenital dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery can largely affect patients’ postoperative quality of life. Whether robotic surgery can be a better option when comparing with laparoscopic surgery is still not well-known.

Methods

Comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials was conducted to identify relevant studies in March 2018. Studies comparing robotic surgery with laparoscopic surgery were included. Measurement of urogenital function was through the International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function.

Results

Six studies with 386 patients in robotic group and 421 patients in laparoscopic group were finally included. Pooled analysis indicated that bladder function was better at 12 months in the robotic group after the procedures (mean difference, − 0.30, 95% CI, − 0.52 to − 0.08). No significant difference was found at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (mean difference, − 0.37, 95% CI, − 1.48 to 0.73; mean difference, − 1.21, 95% CI, − 2.69 to 0.28). Sexual function was better at 3 months in the robotic group after surgery (mean difference, − 3.28, 95% CI, − 6.08 to − 0.49) and not significantly different at 6 and 12 months. (mean difference, 3.78, 95% CI, − 7.37 to 14.93; mean difference, − 2.82, 95% CI, − 8.43 to 2.80).

Conclusion

Robotic surgery may offer faster recovery in urogenital function compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Sexual and urinary outcomes in robotic rectal surgery: review of the literature and technical considerations

Several studies have reported high rates of urogenital dysfunction after open and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic surgery has several features that could facilitate identification and preservation of autonomic nerves. This manuscript aims to summarize the literature regarding urogenital function after robotic rectal cancer surgery and focus on technical aspects of nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision. Comprehensive searches were conducted through online databases. Selection criteria included: original articles assessing urinary and sexual function after robotic surgery of males and/or females with standardized questionnaires. A total of 16 articles were included in the review. Seven of the nine cohort studies evaluating male sexual function showed earlier recovery or better outcomes in patients operated with robotic techniques. Two studies did not find any statistically significant difference. Three out of four case series found no difference in sexual function scores measured preoperatively and after 1 year. Female sexual function was assessed in seven studies: two case series show no deterioration of at 1 year. Three comparative studies showed no difference between robotic and laparoscopic groups. Two randomized control trials showed different results in terms of male and female sexual functions with better preservation at 1 year in the robotic group in one and no difference in another. Urinary functions assessed in males and/or females in the 16 studies showed no statistically significant differences at long-term follow-up. At present, there is no evidence of superiority of robotic surgery for performing nerve-sparing rectal cancer surgery.

Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: case-matched comparison of short-term surgical and functional outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and Si

BACKGROUND

Robotic rectal resection with da Vinci Si has some technical limitations, which could be overcome by the new da Vinci Xi. We compare short-term surgical and functional outcomes following robotic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision for cancer, with the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME group) and the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME group).

METHODS

The first consecutive 30 Xi-RobTME were compared with a Si-RobTME control group of 30 patients, selected using a one-to-one case-matched methodology from our prospectively collected Institutional database, comprising all cases performed between April 2010 and September 2016 by a single surgeon. Perioperative outcomes were compared. The impact of minimally invasive TME on autonomic function and quality of life was analyzed with specific questionnaires.

RESULTS

The docking and overall operative time were shorter in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05 respectively). The mean differences of overall operative time and docking time were -33.8 min (95% CI -5.1 to -64.5) and -6 min (95% CI -4.1 to -7.9), respectively. A fully-robotic approach with complete splenic flexure mobilization was used in 30/30 (100%) of the Xi-RobTME cases and in 7/30 (23%) of the Si-RobTME group (p < 0.001). The hybrid approach in males and patients with BMI > 25 kg/m² was necessary in ten patients (45 vs. 0%, p < 0.001) and in six patients (37 vs. 0%, p < 0.05), in the Si-RobTME and Xi-RobTME groups, respectively. There were no differences in conversion rate, mean hospital stay, pathological data, and in functional outcomes between the two groups before and at 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The technical advantages offered by the da Vinci Xi seem to be mainly associated with a shorter docking and operative time and with superior ability to perform a fully-robotic approach. Clinical and functional outcomes seem not to be improved, with the introduction of the new Xi platform.

Recent advances in the management of rectal cancer: No surgery, minimal surgery or minimally invasive surgery

Over the last decade, with the acceptance of the need for improvements in the outcome of patients affected with rectal cancer, there has been a significant increase in the literature regarding treatment options available to patients affected by this disease. That treatment related decisions should be made at a high volume multidisciplinary tumor board, after pre-operative rectal magnetic resonance imaging and the importance of total mesorectal excision (TME) are accepted standard of care. More controversial is the emerging role for watchful waiting rather than radical surgery in complete pathologic responders, which may be appropriate in 20% of patients. Patients with early T1 rectal cancers and favorable pathologic features can be cured with local excision only, with transanal minimal invasive surgery (TAMIS) because of its versatility and almost universal availability of the necessary equipment and skillset in the average laparoscopic surgeon, emerging as the leading option. Recent trials have raised concerns about the oncologic outcomes of the standard “top-down” TME hence transanal TME (TaTME “bottom-up”) approach has gained popularity as an alternative. The challenges are many, with a dearth of evidence of the oncologic superiority in the long-term for any given option. However, this review highlights recent advances in the role of chemoradiation only for complete pathologic responders, TAMIS for highly selected early rectal cancer patients and TaTME as options to improve cure rates whilst maintaining quality of life in these patients, while we await the results of further definitive trials being currently conducted.

达芬奇机器人在直肠癌手术中泌尿生殖功能保护的系统回顾

目的

研究达芬奇机器人在直肠癌术后中对于患者盆部神经功能的保护相比于腹腔镜手术的优势.

方法

利用计算器检索关于国内外发表的机器人和腹腔镜直肠癌手术的对比研究, 研究采用的方法为国际公认的国际前列腺症状评分量表和国际勃起功能指数量表, 对纳入文献进行综合分析.

结果

最终纳入7篇文献, 共673例患者, 行机器人手术患者311例, 平均年龄62.7岁, 行腹腔镜手术362例, 平均年龄69.6岁. 两种手术方式的患者术后泌尿性功能均有一定程度的下降, 但机器人手术组患者的下降程度明显低于腹腔镜手术组, 且恢复至术前水平的速度更快.

结论

达芬奇机器人相比与腹腔镜手术在直肠癌患者术后的泌尿性功能保护方面具有一定优势.