Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach-report of a single-center experience

Impact of robotic total mesorectal excision upon pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 836 cases

The aim of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the impact of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) on pathology metrics in Male Overweight patients with Low rectal cancer (MOL). This was a multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of data. Two groups were defined: MOL (Male, Overweight, Low rectal cancer) and non-MOL. Overweight was defined as BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. Low rectal cancer was defined as cancer within 6 cm from the anal verge. The primary endpoints of this study were histopathological metrics, namely circumferential resection margin (CRM) (mm), CRM involvement rate (%), and the quality of TME. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved if < 1 mm. 836 (106 MOL and 730 non-MOL) patients that underwent robotic TME by six surgeons over 3 years were compared. No significant differences in demographics and perioperative variables were found, except for operating time, distal margin, and number of lymph nodes harvested. CRM involvement rate did not significantly differ (7.5% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.395). Mean CRM was statistically significantly narrower in MOL patients (6.6 vs. 7.7 mm, p = 0.04). Quality of TME did not differ. Distance of tumor from the anal verge was the only independent predictor of CRM involvement. Robotic TME may provide optimal pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer. Although CRM was a few millimeters narrower in MOL, the values were within the range of uninvolved margins making the difference statistically significant, but not clinically. Being MOL was not a risk factor for involvement of circumferential resection margin.

Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer in patients with varied body mass indexes: evaluating of short-term outcomes

The main aim of this study was to evaluate and contrast the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures in the treatment of low and mid rectal cancer in different BMI (body mass index) groups. The clinical records of patients who had laparoscopic or robotic proctectomy at a single center between December 2019 and August 2023 were analyzed. Then we utilized a classification framework to categorize individuals based on their BMI into three unique groups: non-obese, overweight, and obese. The short-term efficacy was evaluated. A consecutive sample of 1413 patients was included in this retrospective investigation. 1158 people out of the total sample chose laparoscopic surgery, whereas 255 people chose robotic surgery. In the group of obese people, robotic surgery showed a statistically significant decrease in blood loss compared to laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.026). People who were overweight or obese were in the hospital for a shorter amount of time after robotic surgery than after laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.033 and P = 0.031, respectively). People with different BMIs in the robotic surgery group took less time to have a flatus passage and oral intake those in the laparoscopic surgery group. Oncological outcomes and the frequency of complications were comparable between the two treatments with different BMIs. Surgical resection of patients undergoing low-anterior surgery may benefit from a robotic approach, particularly in overweight and obese patients.

Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, while in some respects equivalent or even preferable to open surgery, is challenged in specific conditions where the tumor is located in the middle and lower third of the rectum. Robotic surgery equipped with a superior arm of machinery and gained better visualization can compensate for the deficiency of the laparoscopic approach. This study adopted a propensity matched analysis to compare the functional and oncological short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. All patients who underwent proctectomy have been collected prospectively between December 2019 and November 2022. After censoring for inclusion criteria, we performed a propensity matching analysis. A detailed collection of post-operative examination indicators was performed, while the K-M survival curves were plotted to analyze post-operative oncology outcomes. The LARS scale was designed to evaluate the anal function of patients in the form of questionnaires. Totally, 215 patients underwent robotic operations while 1011 patients selected laparoscopic operations. Patients matched 1∶1 by propensity score were divided into the robotic and laparoscopic groups, 210 cases were included in each group. All patients underwent a follow-up for a median period of 18.3 months. Robotic surgery was connected with an enhanced recovery including the earlier time to first flatus passage without ileostomy (P = 0.050), the earlier time to liquid diet without ileostomy (P = 0.040), lower incidence of urinary retention (P = 0.043), better anal function 1 month after LAR without ileostomy (P < 0.001), longer operative time (\P = 0.042), compared with laparoscopic operations. The oncological outcomes and occurrence of other complications were comparable between the two approaches. For mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery could be recognized as an effective technique with identical short-term outcomes of oncology and better anal function in comparison to laparoscopic surgery. However, multi-center studies with larger samples are expected to validate the long-term outcomes of robotic surgery.

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.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery in Rectal Cancer: Analysis of Medium-Term Oncological Outcomes

Background. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), thus improving the quality of the surgery. So far, many studies have reported the technical feasibility and short-term oncological results of robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) in treating rectal cancer (RC); however, only a few evaluated the survival and long-term oncological outcomes. The following study compared the medium-term oncological data, 3-year overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) of L-TME and R-TME in patients with rectal cancer. Methods. In this retrospective study, records of patients (patients with stage I-III rectal cancer) who underwent surgery (127 cases of L-TME and 148 cases of R-TME) at the Gansu Provincial Hospital between June 2016 and March 2018 were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated the 3-year OS and DFS for all patients treated with curative intent. Results. The conversion rate was significantly higher, and the postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the L-TME group than in the R-TME group (all P<.05). Major complications were significantly lower in the robotic group (P<.05). The 3-year DFS rate (for all stages) was 74.8% for L-TME and 85.8% for R-TME (P = .021). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS and OS were significantly higher in the R-TME group (P<.05). Conclusion. R-TME can achieve better oncological outcomes and is more beneficial for RC patients compared with L-TME, especially for those with stage III rectal cancers. Nevertheless, further randomized controlled trials and a longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these findings.

Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer: a single-centre cohort study

Neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) of locally advanced rectal cancer is associated with challenging surgical treatment and increased postoperative morbidity. Robotic technology overcomes laparoscopy limitations by enlarged 3D view, improved anatomical transection accuracy, and physiologic tremor reduction. Patients with UICC stage II-III rectal cancer, consecutively referred to our institution between March 2015 and June 2020 (n = 102) were treated with robotic (Rob-G, n = 38) or laparoscopic (Lap-G, n = 64) low anterior resection (LAR) for total meso-rectal excision (TME) following highly standardized and successful nCRT treatment. Feasibility, conversion rates, stoma creation, morbidity and clinical/pathological outcome were comparatively analysed. Sex, age, BMI, ASA scores, cTN stages and tumour distance from dentate line were comparable in the two groups. Robotic resection was always feasible without conversion to open surgery, which was necessary in 11/64 (17%) Lap-G operations (p = 0.006). Primary or secondary stomata were created in 17/38 (45%) Rob-G and 52/64 (81%) Lap-G patients (p < 0.001). Major morbidity occurred in 7/38 (18.4%) Rob-G and 6/64 (9.3%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.225). Although median operation time was longer in Rob-G compared with Lap-G (376; IQR: 330-417 min vs. 300; IQR: 270-358 min; p < 0.001), the difference was not significant in patients (Rob-G, n = 6; Lap-G, n = 10) with ≥30 BMI (p = 0.106). Number of resected lymph nodes, ypTN staging and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were comparable. Resection was complete in 87% of Rob-G and 89% of Lap-G patients (p = 0.750). Robotic LAR is not inferior to laparoscopic LAR following nCRT. Larger, randomized studies are needed to confirm lower conversion in robotic, compared to laparoscopic resection.

C-Reactive Protein as Predictor for Infectious Complications after Robotic and Open Esophagectomies

Introduction: The value of C-reactive protein (CRP) as a predictor of anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy has been addressed by numerous studies. Despite its increasing application, robotic esophagectomy (RAMIE) has not been considered separately yet in this context. We, therefore, aimed to evaluate the predictive value of CRP in RAMIE. Material and Methods: Patients undergoing RAMIE or completely open esophagectomy (OE) at our University Center were included. Clinical data, CRP- and Procalcitonin (PCT)-values were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database and evaluated for their predictive value for subsequent postoperative infectious complications (PIC) (AL, gastric conduit leakage or necrosis, pneumonia, empyema). Results: Three hundred and five patients (RAMIE: 160, OE: 145) were analyzed. PIC were noted in 91 patients on postoperative day (POD) 10 and 123 patients on POD 30, respectively. Median POD of diagnosis of PIC was POD 8. Post-operative CRP-values in the robotic-group peaked one and two days later, respectively, and converged from POD 5 onward compared to the open-group. In the group with PIC, CRP-levels in the robotic-group were initially lower and started to differ significantly from POD 3 onward. In the open-group, increases were already noticed from POD 3 on. Procalcitonin levels did not differ. Best Receiver operating curve (ROC)-results were on POD 4, highest negative predictive values at POD 5 (RAMIE) and POD 4 (OE) with cut-off values of 70 mg/L and 88.3 mg/L, respectively. Conclusion: Post-operative CRP is a good negative predictor for PIC, after both RAMIE and OE. After RAMIE, CRP peaks later with a lower cut-off value.

Robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy with lung cancer in a patient with situs inversus totalis

Background

Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a relatively rare congenital abnormality in which the major thoracic and abdominal visceral organs are reversed from their usual positions. In patients with SIT and bronchial carcinoma, surgical difficulty increases sharply. It has been reported that the video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) still poses the operator to a challenge situation. The similarity of surgical positions and the flexibility of the mechanical arm in robotic surgery, may be beneficial to SIT patients due to reducing technical difficulties. Here, we present a first case of SIT patient with lung cancer, in which Da Vinci robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) was performed successfully.

Case presentation

A 66-year old patient, previously diagnosed with SIT since childhood, came to our hospital with two pulmonary nodules in his left lung field. The bigger one had increased somewhat for the last 2 years of follow-up. Software Mimics was preoperatively carried out to analyze anatomical variations. RATS was conducted to complete left upper lobectomy and left middle wedge resection. The patient had no intraoperative complications and was discharged day 5 after the operation.

Conclusions

This is the first report of a successful robot-assisted lung cancer resection in a patient with SIT. In such challenging cases as lung cancer and rare anomaly as SIT, RATS is more advantageous and suitable than VATS with the help of software Mimics utilized for 3D reconstruction, which can identify the anatomical abnormalities and facilitate the surgical procedures.

Is Robotic Assisted Colorectal Cancer Surgery Equivalent Compared to Laparoscopic Procedures during the Introduction of a Robotic Program? A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

Simple Summary

The introduction of a robotic program is challenging and requires extensive experience in minimally invasive surgery. Short-term outcomes and oncological quality should not differ between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. To our knowledge, no data on the quality of surgery at the time of introduction of the robotic platform are available. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes and oncological findings of robotic-assisted colorectal resections with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction of the robotic platform.

Abstract

Background: Robotic surgery represents a novel approach for the treatment of colorectal cancers and has been established as an important and effective method over the last years. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of a robotic program on oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction. Methods: All colorectal cancer patients from two centers that either received robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic surgery were included in a comparative study. A propensity-score-matched analysis was used to reduce confounding differences. Results: A laparoscopic resection (LR Group) was performed in 82 cases, and 93 patients were treated robotic-assisted surgery (RR Group). Patients’ characteristics did not differ between groups. In right-sided resections, an intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly more often performed in the RR Group (LR Group: 5 (26.31%) vs. RR Group: 10 (76.92%), p = 0.008). Operative time was shown to be significantly shorter in the LR Group (LR Group: 200 min (150–243) vs. 204 min (174–278), p = 0.045). Conversions to open surgery did occur more often in the LR Group (LR Group: 16 (19.51%) vs. RR Group: 5 (5.38%), p = 0.004). Postoperative morbidity, the number of harvested lymph nodes, quality of resection and postoperative tumor stage did not differ between groups. Conclusion: In this study, we could clearly demonstrate robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery as effective, feasible and safe regarding postoperative morbidity and oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopy during the introduction of a robotic system.

Using the da Vinci X® - System for Esophageal Surgery

Robotic esophageal surgery is becoming more widely adopted. Several publications on the feasibility, short-term outcomes and technical aspects are available. Most of these articles used either the da Vinci® SI system or in newer series the Xi System. The da Vinci® X system is generally considered less suited for multiquadrant access like in esophageal surgery, hence only limited data is available. Here we describe our initial experience with 16 Ivor-Lewis robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies (RAMIE) in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. The da Vinci® X system was installed in our department in 2019; the robotic program comprises colorectal, pancreatic and esophageal surgery. The first two patients were operated in the presence of a proctor. An operative standard was established including fluorescence angiography (Firefly®). Technical aspects with focus on the characteristics of the da Vinci® X system, operating room setup, and short-term outcomes are discussed.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

Comparison of the quality of total mesorectal excision after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and disease-free and overall survival rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for rectal cancer.

Methods

From January 2015 to December 2018, 234 patients underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer at two centers. Ultimately, 201 patients were enrolled. To control for different demographic factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were generated with the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative radiation. Finally, 134 patients were matched with 67 patients in the robotic surgery group and 67 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group.

Results

There was no significant difference in the pathologic stages between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. Distal margin involvement was only observed in the robotic surgery group (1/67, 1.5%). Circumferential resection margin involvement was not different between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (3/67 [4.5%] and 4/67 [6.0%], respectively, P=1.000). The quality of TME (complete, nearly complete, and incomplete) was similar between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (88.0%, 6.0%, 6.0% and 79.1%, 9.0%, 11.9%, respectively, P=0.358). The disease-free and overall survival rates were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusion

The quality of TME and disease-free and overall survival rates between the two surgeries were similar. There was no oncologic advantage of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic surgery.

A nationwide comparison of short-term outcomes after transanal, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has several limitations. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) can potentially overcome these limitations. The aim of this study was to compare the rates of non-radical surgery and anastomotic leakage after TaTME, open TME (OpTME), laparoscopic TME (LaTME) and robotic TME (RoTME) procedures in a nationwide cohort.

METHODS

We extracted the demographic, perioperative and pathological data of patients who underwent a curative OpTME, LaTME, RoTME or TaTME procedure between January 2014 and December 2018 from the national database of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). We conducted multiple group-comparisons, uni- and multivariate analyses to determine the factors associated with positive resection margin (+RM) and anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

We included 2393 patients (OpTME = 205, LaTME = 1163, RoTME = 713 and TaTME = 312). The rate of +RM was 5.7% after TaTME. The lowest rate of +RM was achieved after RoTME (8.2%, 4.7%, 2.52%, and 5.7%, after OpTME, LaTME, RoTME and TaTME respectively, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, having a T4 tumour and intraoperative bowel perforation were associated with the risk of +RM (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). The factors associated with anastomotic leakage in multivariate analysis were male gender, high BMI and intraoperative bowel perforation (p < 0.001, p = 0.049, p = 0.002, respectively). TaTME was associated with the highest rate of sphincter-saving procedures (79.8%, p < 0.001), the lowest rate of bowel perforation (2.9%, p = 0.028) and the lowest rate of conversion to open surgery (1.3%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide audit of TME approaches, the rate of +RM was lowest after RoTME. No differences were found between the four approaches regarding the risk of anastomotic leakage. TaTME offered advantages related to sphincter-saving, perforation and conversion.

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Procedure Guide

Purpose

This is a step-by-step procedural guide to help new and unexperienced surgeons with the implementation of a robotic program for the surgical treatment of morbid obesity.

Methods

Based on our vast robotic experience, we present our standardized technique and also, with a PubMed research, discuss the different surgical aspects.

Results

We present our trainings pathway towards the first robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, a step-by-step procedural guide with helpful hints when it comes to troubleshooting and also discuss some surgical aspects.

Conclusion

The robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe and feasible, and might offer some advantages in comparison to the laparoscopic approach.

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.

Embryological Development and Topographic Anatomy of Pelvic Compartments-Surgical Relevance for Pelvic Lymphonodectomy

Background: The oncological outcome of surgery for the treatment of pelvic malignancies can be improved by performing pelvic lymphonodectomy. However, the extent and regions of lymph node harvest are debated and require profound knowledge of anatomy in order to avoid collateral damage. Methods: The embryological development and topographic anatomy of pelvic compartments in relation to pelvic lymphonodectomy for rectal, uterine, and prostate cancer are reviewed. Based on pre-dissected anatomical specimens, lymph node regions and drainage routes of the posterior and urogenital pelvic compartments are described in both genders. Anatomical landmarks are highlighted to identify structures at risk of injury during pelvic lymphonodectomy. Results: The ontogenesis of urogenital and anorectal compartments and their lymphatic supply are key factors for adequate lymphonodectomy, and have led to compartment-based surgical resection strategies. However, pelvic lymphonodectomy bears the risk of injury to somatic and autonomic nerves, vessels, and organs, depending on the regions and extent of surgery. Conclusion: Embryologically defined, compartment-based resection of pelvic malignancies and their lymphatic drainage routes are based on clearly delineated anatomical landmarks, which permit template-oriented pelvic lymphonodectomy. Comprehensive knowledge of pelvic anatomy, the exchange of surgical concepts between specialties, and minimally invasive techniques will optimize pelvic lymphonodectomy and reduce complications.

Involvement of medical students in a surgery congress: impact on learning motivation, decision-making for a career in surgery, and educational curriculum

During the preclinical period of medical school, the clinical relevance of theoretical knowledge is given little attention. Medical students of the second year were invited to participate in an interdisciplinary congress for robot-assisted and digital surgery. The students had to evaluate the impact of the congress on their learning motivation, decision-making for a career in surgery, and relevance for their educational curriculum. Participation in the congress increased their learning motivation for preclinical subjects, and significantly increased their interest in a surgical career. Most students considered active involvement in medical congresses a valuable supplement to the medical curriculum. Congress participation during the preclinical period was ranked positively by medical students. Greater learning motivation and enthusiasm for the pilot teaching project as well as for surgical disciplines were registered. Thus, early involvement of medical students in scientific congresses should be an integral part of their educational curriculum.

Defining benchmarks for robotic-assisted low anterior rectum resection in low-morbid patients: a multicenter analysis

PURPOSE

To define the best possible outcomes for robotic-assisted low anterior rectum resection (RLAR) using total mesorectal excision (TME) in low-morbid patients, performed by expert robotic surgeons in German robotic centers. The benchmark values were derived from these results.

METHODS

The data was retrospectively collected from five German expert centers. After patient exclusion (prior surgery, extended surgery, no prior anastomosis, hand-sewn anastomosis), the benchmark cohort was defined (n = 226). The median with interquartile range was first calculated for the individual centers. The 75th percentile of the median results was defined as the benchmark cutoff and represents the "perfect" achievable outcome. This applied to all benchmark values apart from lymph node yield, where the cutoff was defined as the 25th percentile (more lymph nodes are better).

RESULTS

The benchmark values for conversion and intraoperative complication rates were ≤ 4.0% and ≤ 1.4%, respectively. For postoperative complications, the benchmark was ≤ 28% for "any" and ≤ 18.0% for major complications. The R0 and complete TME rate benchmarks were both 100%, with a lymph node yield of > 18. The benchmark for rate of anastomotic insufficiency was < 12.5% and 90-day mortality was 0%. Readmission rates should not exceed 4%.

CONCLUSION

This outcome analysis of patients with low comorbidity undergoing RLAR may serve as a reference to evaluate surgical performance in robotic rectum resection.

Simultaneous colorectal and parenchymal-sparing liver resection for advanced colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: Between conventional and mini-invasive approaches

The optimal timing of surgery in case of synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases is still under debate. Staged approach, with initial colorectal resection followed by liver resection (LR), or even the reverse, liver-first approach in specific situations, is traditionally preferred. Simultaneous resections, however, represent an appealing strategy, because may have perioperative risks comparable to staged resections in appropriately selected patients, while avoiding a second surgical procedure. In patients with larger or multiple synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases, simultaneous major hepatectomies may determine worse perioperative outcomes, so that parenchymal-sparing LR should represent the most appropriate option whenever feasible. Mini-invasive colorectal surgery has experienced rapid spread in the last decades, while laparoscopic LR has progressed much slower, and is usually reserved for limited tumours in favourable locations. Moreover, mini-invasive parenchymal-sparing LR is more complex, especially for larger or multiple tumours in difficult locations. It remains to be established if simultaneous resections are presently feasible with mini-invasive approaches or if we need further technological advances and surgical expertise, at least for more complex procedures. This review aims to critically analyze the current status and future perspectives of simultaneous resections, and the present role of the available mini-invasive techniques.

Robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers: has a paradigm change occurred? A systematic review by updated meta-analysis

AIM

The debate about the oncological adequacy, safety and efficiency of robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers continues. Therefore, an updated, traditional and cumulative meta-analysis was performed with the aim of assessing the new evidence on this topic.

METHOD

A systematic search of the literature for data pertaining to the last 25 years was performed. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to cumulatively assess the accumulation of evidence over time.

RESULTS

Patients with a significantly higher body mass index (BMI), tumours located approximately 1 cm further distally and more patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were included in the robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) cohort compared with those in the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) cohort [RTME, mean difference (MD) = 0.22 (0.07, 0.36), P = 0.005; LTME, MD = -0.97 (-1.57, 0.36), P < 0.002; OR = 1.47 (1.11, 1.93), P = 0.006]. Significantly lower conversion rates to open surgery were observed in the RTME cohort than in the LTME cohort [OR = 0.33 (0.24, 0.46), P < 0.001]. Operative time in the LTME cohort was significantly reduced (by 50 min) compared with the RTME cohort. Subgroup analysis of the three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) challenged all the significant results of the main analysis and demonstrated nonsignificant differences between the RTME cohort and LTME cohort.

CONCLUSION

Although the RTME cohort included patients with a significantly higher BMI, more distal tumours and more patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, this cohort demonstrated lower conversion rates to open surgery when compared with the LTME cohort. However, subgroup analysis of the RCTs demonstrated nonsignificant differences between the two procedures.

The severity of postoperative complications after robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

Objective

Robotic surgery (RS) has been increasingly used for the resection of rectal cancer, and its advantages over laparoscopic surgery (LS) have been demonstrated. However, few studies focused on the severity of postoperative complications. This study aimed to compared the postoperative complications within 30 days after RS over LS according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification.

Methods

A literature research of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically performed. The studies comparing the complications of RS and LS for rectal cancer based on the C-D classification were enrolled. Primary outcomes were C-D grade III, IV, V, III-V (severe complications).

Results

Seventeen studies (3193 patients) were included in the final analysis: 1554 underwent RS and 1639 underwent LS. The RS group was associated with significantly lower rates of severe complications (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.90, P = 0.005), C-D grade IV (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.90, P = 0.005), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48–0.91, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in C-D grade III, C-D grade I, II, I-II (minor complications), overall complications, bleeding, wound complications, postoperative ileus, urinary retention, readmission, reoperation between two groups.

Conclusions

Robotic surgery is safe for rectal cancer and may be an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery, with lower rates of severe complications, C-D grade IV, and anastomotic leak. Further large randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this conclusion.

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.

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

The impact of robotic total mesorectal excision on survival of patients with rectal cancer-a propensity matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), improving the quality of the surgery. We aim to compare the medium-term oncological outcomes of L-TME vs. robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who underwent L-TME or R-TME between 2011 and 2017. Patients presenting with metastatic disease or R1 resection were excluded. From a total of 680 patients, 136 cases of R-TME were matched based on age, gender, stage and time of follow-up with an equal number of patients who underwent L-TME. We compared 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Major complications were lower in the robotic group (13.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.04), highlighting the anastomotic leakage rate (7.4% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.01). The 3-year DFS rate for all stages was 69% for L-TME and 84% for R-TME (p = 0.02). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS was significantly higher in the R-TME group. OS was also significantly superior in the robotic group for every stage, reaching 86% in stage III. In the multivariate analysis, R-TME was a significant positive prognostic factor for distant metastasis (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.1, 0.6, p = 0.001) and OS (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.07, 0.4, p = 0.000). Moreover, major complications were also found to have a negative impact on OS (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.2, 21.6, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

R-TME for rectal cancer can achieve better oncological outcomes compared with L-TME, especially in stage III rectal cancers. However, a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm these findings.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery with or without lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for rectal cancer at Fujita Health University Hospital, Aichi, Japan, during a self-pay period.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 115 consecutive patients who underwent robotic surgery for rectal cancer between September 2009 and March 2018, with a median follow-up period of 48 months. Total mesorectal excision was completed by two certified surgeons using a da Vinci S, Si, or Xi Surgical System with an entirely robotic single-docking technique. The surgical and pathological outcomes, morbidity, and oncological results were examined.

RESULTS

Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 26 patients (22.6%). Neither conversion to open surgery nor perioperative blood transfusion occurred. Ten patients (8.7%) experienced Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Pathologically, both the distal and radial margins were negative in all cases. The 5-year relapse-free survival rates for stages I, II, III, and IV were 93.5%, 100%, 83.8%, and not reached, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the period before coverage by the health insurance system, robotic surgery for rectal cancer performed by experienced surgeons was safe and technically feasible, with favorable perioperative results and long-term oncological outcomes, including rates of the relapse-free survival.

Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

TME has revolutionized the surgical management of rectal cancer, and since the introduction of robotic TME (RTME), many reports have shown the feasibility and the safety of this approach. However, concerns persist regarding the advantages of robotic in surgery for the completeness of TME. The aim of this review is to compare robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer, focusing on the completeness of TME.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases for all available studies comparing RTME versus conventional laparoscopic LTME with declared grade of mesorectum excision. Data regarding sample size, clinical and demographic characteristics, number of complete, nearly complete, and incomplete TME were extracted. Primary outcome was the number of complete TME in robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Secondary outcomes were the numbers of nearly complete and incomplete TME in robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were included in the final analysis. Complete TME was reported by all authors, involving 1510 procedures, showing a significant difference in favor of robotic surgery (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.08-3.10, p = 0.03). Nearly complete and incomplete TME showed no significant difference between the procedures. Meta-regression analysis showed that none of patients' and tumors' characteristics significantly impacted on complete TME.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underline that the robotic approach to rectal resection is the better way to obtain a complete TME. However, it is mandatory that randomized clinical trials should be performed to assess definitively if robotic minimally invasive surgery is better than a laparoscopic resection.

Systemic review and network meta-analysis comparing minimal surgical techniques for rectal cancer: quality of total mesorectum excision, pathological, surgical, and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimal invasive surgery has revolutionized recovery in rectal cancer patients. However, there has been debate on its effect on quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and oncological outcomes. This network meta-analysis compares laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and transanal TMEs. This study shows that All three surgical techniques are comparable across TME quality and oncological outcomes. Ultimately, good outcomes are based on each individual surgeon choosing an approach based on their expertise.