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

From Diversion to Permanence: Trends in Ostomy Creation in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Rectal cancer surgery has undergone transformative advancements over the past few decades, evolving from radical, high-morbidity procedures to more refined techniques focused on both oncological outcomes and the preservation of anorectal function. This review provides a brief overview of the history of rectal cancer surgery, highlighting key innovations in imaging, neoadjuvant therapy, and minimally invasive techniques that have significantly reduced the need for permanent and temporary ostomies. Additionally, the current indications for both permanent and temporary ostomies are reviewed, including a discussion of associated complications, such as non-reversal, parastomal hernias, stomal prolapse, stenosis, and skin-related issues, along with strategies and techniques to mitigate these complications. This review underscores the importance of ongoing innovation and individualized surgical planning to enhance patient outcomes in rectal cancer care by understanding the historical context, contemporary practices, and associated challenges.

The Review of Modified Intersphincteric Resection in the Treatment of Ultra-Low Rectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. In China, the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer are increasing, in which low rectal cancer is more common. Ultra-low rectal cancer refers to rectal cancer where the distance between the tumor and the anus is less than 5 cm, it accounts for about 70%-80% of rectal tumors. Intersphincteric resection (ISR), an important technical means for anal preservation of ultra-low rectal cancer, although could reduce the pain of patients during the surgical process, increase the anal preservation rate of patients and improve the life quality of patients, still has many adverse effects such as the high incidence of anorectal anastomotic leakage and high anterior resection syndrome. Many modified ISRs have emerged due to the limitations and adverse reactions of traditional ISR surgery. the purpose of this article is to review the progress of ISR surgery to improve its use in treatment.

Impact of team experience on robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: A comparative study

INTRODUCTION

The robotic surgical team in the operating room plays an important role in determining the outcome of a robotic approach. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of 2 hospitals with different levels of expertise in robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 195 patients who underwent robot-assisted rectal resection at 2 referral centers for the treatment of rectal cancer between March 2018 and December 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 195 patients had undergone robotic rectal cancer surgery: 95 performed by an expert team, and 100 by a novel team. The expert team performed more low anterior resections (55.8%) than the novel team (33%) (P = 0.001), and the total operative time varied significantly between the groups (P < 0.001). The novel team's operative time was 135 min longer than the expert team's. The expert team had no conversions to open surgery, while the novel team had an 8% conversion rate (P = 0.007). In this study, overall morbidity was 45.3% among patients treated by the expert team versus 38% among those treated by the novice team (P = 0.304). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade >IIIB) occurred at a rate of 10% in both groups. Incomplete mesorectal excision was observed in 3.2% of the expert team's patients versus 4.2% of the novice team's (P = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

The expert team achieved a shorter operative time and less conversion to open surgery. However, the morbidity and pathological outcomes were comparable between the teams. The introduction of robotic surgery in a team with early-stage surgical experience was safe.

A Narrative Review on the Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Colorectal Cancer Management

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and deep learning in medical practice in the management of colorectal cancer has gathered significant attention in recent years. Colorectal cancer, being the third most common type of malignancy, requires an innovative approach to augment early detection and advanced surgical techniques to reduce morbidity and mortality. With its emerging potential, AI improves colorectal cancer management by assisting with accuracy in screening, pathology evaluation, precision, and postoperative care. Evidence suggests that AI minimizes missed cases during colorectal cancer screening, plays a promising role in pathology and imaging diagnoses, and facilitates accurate staging. In surgical management, AI demonstrates comparable or superior outcomes to laparoscopic approaches, with reduced hospital stays and conversion rates. However, these outcomes are influenced by clinical expertise and other dependable factors, including expertise in implementing AI-based software and detecting possible errors. Despite these advancements, limited multicenter studies and randomized trials restrict the comprehensive evaluation of AI's true potential and integration into standard practice. We used Pubmed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for this review. The final number of articles selected, depending on inclusion and exclusion criteria, is 122. We included papers published in the English language, literature published in the last 10 years, and adult patient populations above 35 years with colorectal cancer. We thoroughly included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and case-control studies. The use of AI paves the way for the adoption of more personalized medicine. This review highlights the advantages of AI at various disease stages for colorectal cancer patients and evaluates its potential for cost-effective implementation in clinical practice.

Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for patients with low rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (L-ISR) and robotic intersphincteric resection (R-ISR) for low rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective clinical analysis between August 2018 and August 2021 at the Department Of General Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were recruited in this research. Among these patients, there were 12 patients who underwent L-ISR and assigned to L-ISR group, and the remaining 16 patients underwent R-ISR and assigned to R-ISR group. The time to start oral fluids, time to start soft diet and time to first motion in R-ISR group were earlier than those in L-ISR group ( P < 0.05). The hospital stay in R-ISR group was shorter than that in L-ISR group ( P < 0.05). However, the operation time of R-ISR was longer compared to L-ISR group ( P < 0.05). Most important of all, the Kelly score in R-ISR group was 5.1 ± 0.9, which was higher than that in L-ISR group ( P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

R-ISR is safe and feasible for patients with low rectal cancer. R-ISR is superior to L-ISR despite the operation time of R-ISR is longer. A randomised controlled trial will be performed to confirm the conclusion further.

Short-term Outcomes of Robot-assisted Colectomy Using the Overlap Method for Right-sided Colon Cancer

Background/Aim

The recent development of minimally invasive surgery has led to transition from laparoscopic right colectomy (LC) to robot-assisted right colectomy (RC) in Japan. However, it is unclear whether the introduction of RC in municipal hospitals could be as safe as that in high-volume centers in Japan. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to compare the short-term operative outcomes of RC and LC for right colon cancer at a local municipal hospital in Japan.

Patients and Methods

Patients with stage I-IV right colon cancer who underwent elective RC or LC between January 2021 and July 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with double cancer and those who underwent delta anastomosis were excluded. Postoperative surveillance included patient interviews, physical examinations, tumor marker examinations, and whole-body computed tomography every six months.

Results

Forty patients were analyzed, and 24 (60%) and 16 (40%) patients assigned in the LC and RC groups, respectively, were compared. The operative time, bleeding, postoperative complications, and pathological examinations did not differ significantly between the LC and RC groups.

Conclusion

RC using overlapping anastomoses was comparable to LC in terms of short-term operative outcomes. The introduction of RC with overlapping anastomosis is a feasible surgical technique.

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.

Hybrid Abdominal Robotic Approach Using the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System with Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: The First Ever Case Report for Rectal Cancer

In Japan, the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System obtained pharmaceutical approval for use in colorectal cancer surgery in October 2022. This system has an operating arm with eight axes, adjustable arm base, and flexible three-dimensional viewer, which are expected to be advantageous in colorectal cancer surgery. A 55-year-old man presented to our hospital with melena and was diagnosed with cStage IIA (cT3N0M0) rectal cancer. The patient underwent intersphincteric resection using hinotori™ Surgical Robot System. Appropriate port placement was available for rectal manipulation, lymph node dissection, and arm base angle adjustment. Herein, we report the world's first rectal cancer surgery using the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System with TaTME by two teams.

Robotic versus laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few available studies that compare the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection compared to laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection (LPLND) in advanced rectal cancer. This meta-analysis aims to compare perioperative outcomes between robotic and LPLND.

METHODS

We performed a systemic literature review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Perioperative parameters were extracted and pooled for analysis. This meta-analysis provided an analysis of heterogeneity and prediction intervals.

RESULTS

Five studies were included: 567 patients divided between 266 robotic and 301 LPLND. Overall operation time was longer in the robotic group than laparoscopic group (difference in means = 67.11, 95% CI [30.80, 103.42], p < 0.001) but the difference in the pelvic lateral lymph dissection time was not statistically significant (difference in means =  - 1.212, 95% CI [ - 11.594, 9.171], p = 0.819). There were fewer overall complications in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (OR = 1.589, 95% CI [1.009, 2.503], p = 0.046), especially with respect to urinary retention (OR = 2.23, 95% CI [1.277, 3.894], p = 0.005). More pelvic lateral lymph nodes were harvested by robotic surgery than by laparoscopy (differences in means =  - 1.992, 95% CI [ - 2.421, 1.563], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection was associated with more pelvic lateral lymph nodes harvested and lower overall complications, especially urinary retention when compared to LPLND. Further studies are needed to reinforce these findings.

Research progress of robot and laparoscope in postoperative complications of rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumours worldwide, and it is also one of the major diseases that seriously threatens human life and health. At present, the main treatment for rectal cancer is still surgical treatment. The surgical methods have been rapidly developed from the previous open surgery to the current minimally invasive surgery. At present, there are two main minimally invasive surgeries: robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. Due to the particularity of rectal cancer surgery, more and more studies have shown that robotic rectal cancer surgery has more advantages than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether the incidence of postoperative complications after robotic rectal cancer surgery is lower than that after laparoscopy is not uniformly conclusive in the current study. Therefore, in this paper, we searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase and other databases, collected the latest published meta-analysis on postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer, and assessed the quality of the included meta-analysis by AMSTAR-2 evaluation tool, so as to explore the current research status and research quality of postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer. The results showed that compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic rectal cancer surgery could improve the postoperative urinary and reproductive function of male patients, but it could not be proved that robotic rectal cancer surgery could reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, urinary retention, intestinal obstruction, anastomotic bleeding, incision infection, pulmonary infection, venous thrombosis and abdominal abscess; however, the overall quality of meta-analysis of the results of each complication was low or very low. Therefore, multicenter, large-sample, high-quality prospective randomised controlled studies and high-quality meta-analysis are still needed to prove the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery in postoperative complications in the future.

Sphincter-preserving effect of robotic-assisted intersphincteric resection for ultra-low rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is a viable option for sphincter preservation in early ultra-low rectal cancer, but postoperative anal dysfunction remains a concern. This study evaluates the outcomes of robotic ISR with coloanal anastomosis in early ultra-low rectal cancer, comparing its efficacy and safety with laparoscopic ISR. Retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 74 consecutive patients undergoing robotic intersphincteric resection (R-ISR) for early ultra-low rectal cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 (R-ISR group), matched with 110 patients undergoing laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (L-ISR). After 1:1 propensity score matching, each group comprised 68 patients. Comparative analyses covered surgical outcomes, complications, long-term results, and anal function. The R-ISR group showed longer total operative time than the L-ISR group (211.7 ± 25.3 min vs. 191.2 ± 23.0 min, p = 0.001), but less intraoperative bleeding (55.2 ± 20.7 ml vs. 69.2 ± 22.9 ml, p = 0.01). R-ISR group had fewer conversions to APR surgery (6/8.8% vs. 14/20.6%). Other perioperative indicators were similar. R-ISR exhibited a smaller tumor margin, superior mesorectal integrity, and comparable histopathological outcomes. Postoperative complications, 3-year and 5-year DFS, and OS were similar. At the 1-year follow-up, the Wexner Incontinence Score favored R-ISR (9.24 ± 4.03 vs. 11.06 ± 3.77, p = 0.048). Although R-ISR prolongs the operative time, its surgical safety and oncological outcomes are similar to conventional ISR procedures. Furthermore, it further shortens the margin of anal preservation, reduces the rate of conversion to APR surgery, and improves postoperative anal function.

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.

Risk factors, quality of life, and oncological effects of refractory anastomotic leakage for laparoscopic intersphincteric resection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Refractory anastomotic leakage (RAL) after intersphincteric resection (ISR) usually leads to failure of protective stoma reversal in ultralow rectal cancers. The aim of this study is to assess the risk factors and oncological outcomes of both anastomotic leakage (AL) and RAL, and quality of life (QoL) of RAL after laparoscopic ISR (LsISR).

METHODS

A total of 371 ultralow rectal cancer patients with LsISR were enrolled from a tertiary colorectal surgery referral center. Risk factors for AL and RAL were identified by logistic regression. Three-year disease-free survival (DFS) of AL and RAL was analyzed by the Cox regression. QoL of RAL group (compared with non-RAL group) was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires.

RESULTS

The rates of AL and RAL after LsISR accounted for 8.4% (31/371) and 4.6% (17/371) in this cohort, respectively. Non-left colic artery preservation (odds ratio [OR] = 3.491, P = 0.009), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) (OR = 6.038, P < 0.001), and lower anastomosis height (OR = 5.271, P = 0.010) were independent risk factors for AL, while nCRT (OR = 11.602, P < 0.001) was the only independent risk factor for RAL. Male (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.989, P = 0.014), age > 60 years (HR = 1.877, P = 0.018), and lymph node metastasis (HR = 2.125, P = 0.005) were independent risk factors of poor 3-year DFS, but not RAL (P = 0.646). RAL patients have significantly worse global health status, worse emotional and social function scores at the late postoperative stage, and worse urinary and sexual function at the early postoperative stage (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was an independent risk factor for RAL after LsISR. RAL shows similar oncological outcomes, but with poor QoL.

Integrating a tumour appropriate transanal or robotic assisted approach to total mesorectal excision in high-volume rectal cancer practice is safe and cost-effective

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is accepted as the gold standard for oncological resection in rectal cancer. The best approach to TME is debated and often surgeons will select a preferred approach. In this study, we aimed to describe how both robotic (R-TME) and transanal (TaTME) TME can be integrated into high-volume rectal cancer surgeon practice with a comparison of clinical and oncological outcomes and cost analysis. A prospective comparative cohort study was performed in a high-volume rectal cancer centre comparing the previous 50 R-TME and 50 TaTME performed by the same surgeon. A comparison of tumour characteristics was performed to highlight a specific role for each technique. Clinical outcomes (operative duration, length of stay (LOS) and perioperative morbidity), cancer quality indicators (resection margin and completeness of TME) and cost analysis were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS, version 20. R-TME was preferred in mid-rectal cancer, compared to TaTME preferred in low rectal cancer (9 cm vs. 5 cm, p < 0.001). Operative duration was longer in R-TME compared to TaTME (265 vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). Major complications (CD III-IV complications) were experienced in 10% of R-TME and 14% of TaTME (p = 0.476). A 98% (n = 49) clear R0 resection margin was achieved with both R-TME and TaTME and mesorectum quality defined as 'complete' in 86% (n = 43) in R-TME and 82% (n = 41) in TaTME. Length of hospital stay was shorter in R-TME (5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.624). An overall difference of €131 was observed favouring TaTME. In high-volume rectal cancer surgery practice, both R-TME and TaTME can be practised and tailored according to patients and tumour characteristics, with comparable clinical and cancer outcomes and is cost-effective.

Single-Port Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for the Treatment of Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Single-port (SP) system is designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery in a narrow space. We developed a new procedure of intersphincteric resection (ISR) using the SP platform and evaluated the technical safety and feasibility of this procedure for the treatment of very low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eleven rectal cancer patients who underwent SP robotic ISR between August 2020 and July 2021 were included. Patients' clinical characteristics, operative and pathologic findings of the patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The median tumor height was 3 cm (range, 2-4 cm). A single docking was performed, and the median docking time was 3 min 10 sec (range, 2 min 50 sec-3 min 30 sec). The median total operation time was 210 min (range, 150-280 min), and the median time of pelvic dissection was 57 min (range, 45-68 min). All patients presented with negative distal resection margins [median 1 cm (range, 0.5-2.0 cm)], and only one patient had less than 1mm of circumferential resection margin (0.9 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience suggests that SP robotic ISR is safe and feasible.

Propensity score-matched analysis of the short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The advantages of robot-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) over conventional laparoscope-assisted rectal surgery (LARS) remain controversial. This study was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of RARS and LARS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of 207 patients who had undergone either RARS (n = 97) or LARS (n = 110) for rectal cancer (RC) from 2018 to 2020. A 1:1 matched propensity score-matched analysis was performed and the surgical outcomes of the two groups compared.

RESULTS

After matching, a well-balanced cohort of 136 patients was analyzed (n = 68 in each group), and there was no significant difference in the median operative time. The RARS group had less intraoperative blood loss than the LARS group. There were no significant differences in length of postoperative hospital stay or complication rate between the two groups. In the subgroup of lower RC, defined as the inferior edge of the tumor being within the rectum distal to the peritoneal reflection, the rate of sphincter preservation was higher in the RARS group (81.8% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that RARS is a safe and feasible approach for RC compared with LARS, RARS having the advantage of more often preserving the sphincter.

Developing a Robotic Surgical Platform Is Beneficial to the Implementation of the ERAS Program for Colorectal Surgery: An Outcome and Learning Curve Analysis

Background: Robotic surgery and ERAS protocol care are both prominent developments and have each become global trends. However, the effects and learning curves of combining robotic surgery and ERAS care in colorectal resection have not yet been well validated. This study aimed to present our real-world experience and establish the learning curves necessary for the implementation of an ERAS program in minimally-invasive surgery for colorectal resection, while also evaluating the impact that the development of the robotic technique has on ERAS outcomes. Methods: A total of 155 patients who received elective, minimally-invasive surgery, including laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal resection, with ERAS care during the period June 2019 to September 2021 were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were divided chronologically into five groups (31 cases per quintile). Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, perioperative data, ERAS compliance, and surgical outcomes were all compared among the quintiles. Learning curves were evaluated based on ERAS compliance and optimal recovery, which are composed of an absence of major complications, postoperative length of stay (LOS) of no more than five days, and no readmission within 30 days. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess factors associated with postoperative LOS. Results: There were no statistically significant differences seen overall or between the quintile groups in regards to demographic and tumor characteristic parameters. A total of 79 patients (51%) received robotic surgery, with the ratio of robotic groups rising chronologically from zero in the first quintile to 90.3% in the fifth quintile (p < 0.001). The median compliance rate of total ERAS protocol was 83.3% overall, 72.2% in the first quintile and 83.3% in the 2nd–5th quintiles (p < 0.001). A total of 85 patients underwent optimal recovery after surgery, four patients in the first quintile, 11 patients in the second quintile, and 21, 24, 25 patients in the 3rd–5th quintiles respectively (p < 0.001). There were significant improvements from early to later groups upon postoperative LOS (p < 0.001). In addition, the surgical outcomes including first oral intake within 24 hours after surgery, time to first stool and early termination of intravenous fluid administration showed significant improvement among the quintiles. A multivariable logistic regression model demonstrated that robotic surgery was superior to laparoscopic surgery upon postoperative LOS (odds ratio = 5.029, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.321 to 19.142; p = 0.018). Conclusions: Our experience demonstrated that an effective implementation of the ERAS program in minimally-invasive colorectal surgery requires 31 patients to accomplish the higher compliance and requires more cases to reach the maturation phase for optimal recovery. We believe that developing a robotic platform would have no impact on the learning curve of ERAS implementation. Moreover, there is a beneficial effect on the postoperative length of surgery provided through the combination of ERAS care and robotic surgery for patients undergoing colorectal resection.

ROBOTIC-ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC INCISIONAL HERNIA REPAIR: DIFFERENCES IN DIRECT COSTS FROM A BRAZILIAN PUBLIC INSTITUTE PERSPECTIVE

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery research has grown dramatically in the past two decades and the advantages over traditional videolaparoscopy have been extensively debated. For hernias, the robotic system can increase intraoperative strategies, especially in complex hernias or incisional hernias.

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the direct cost differences between robotic and laparoscopic hernia repair and determine each source of expenditure that may be related to the increased costs in a robotic program from the perspective of a Brazilian public institution.

METHODS

This study investigated the differences in direct costs from the data generated from a trial protocol (ReBEC: RBR-5s6mnrf). Patients with incisional hernia were randomly assigned to receive laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair (LVIHR) or robotic ventral incisional hernia repair (RVIHR). The direct medical costs of hernia treatment were described in the Brazilian currency (R$).

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients submitted to LVIHR were compared with 18 submitted to RVIHR. The amount spent on operation room time (RVIHR: 2,447.91±644.79; LVIHR: 1,989.67±763.00; p=0.030), inhaled medical gases in operating room (RVIHR: 270.57±211.51; LVIHR: 84.55±252.34; p=0.023), human resources in operating room (RVIHR: 3,164.43±894.97; LVIHR: 2,120.16±663.78; p<0.001), material resources (RVIHR: 3,204.32±351.55; LVIHR: 736.51±972.32; p<0.001), and medications (RVIHR: 823.40±175.47; LVIHR: 288.50±352.55; p<0.001) for RVIHR was higher than that for LVIHR, implying a higher total cost to RVIHR (RVIHR: 14,712.24±3,520.82; LVIHR: 10,295.95±3,453.59; p<0.001). No significant difference was noted in costs related to the hospital stay, human resources in intensive care unit and ward, diagnostic tests, and meshes.

CONCLUSION

Robotic system adds a significant overall cost to traditional laparoscopic hernia repair. The cost of the medical and robotic devices and longer operative times are the main factors driving the difference in costs.

Application of the advance incision in robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection

Background

The incidence of rectal cancer is increasing each year. Robotic surgery is being used more frequently in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer; however, several problems associated with robotic surgery persist, such as docking the robot repeatedly to perform auxiliary incisions and difficulty exposing the operative field of obese patients. Herein we introduce a new technology that effectively improves the operability and convenience of robotic rectal surgery.

Objectives

To simplify the surgical procedure, enhance operability, and improve healing of the surgical incision, we developed an advance incision (AI) technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection, and compared its safety and feasibility with those of intraoperative incision.

Methods

Between January 2016 and October 2021, 102 patients with rectal cancer underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection with an AI or intraoperative incision (iOI) incisions. We compared the perioperative, incisional, and oncologic outcomes between groups.

Results

No significant differences in the operating time, blood loss, time to first passage of flatus, time to first passage of stool, duration of hospitalization, and rate of overall postoperative complications were observed between groups. The mean time to perform auxiliary incisions was shorter in the AI group than in the iOI group (14.14 vs. 19.77 min; p < 0.05). The average incision length was shorter in the AI group than in the iOI group (6.12 vs. 7.29 cm; p < 0.05). Postoperative incision pain (visual analogue scale) was lower in the AI group than in the iOI group (2.5 vs. 2.9 p = 0.048). No significant differences in incision infection, incision hematoma, incision healing time, and long-term incision complications, including incision hernia and intestinal obstruction, were observed between groups. The recurrence (AI group vs. iOI group = 4.0% vs. 5.77%) and metastasis rates (AI group vs. iOI group = 6.0% vs. 5.77%) of cancer were similar between groups.

Conclusion

The advance incision is a safe and effective technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection, which simplifies the surgical procedure, enhances operability, and improves healing of the surgical incision.

Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

AIM

An increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13-16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20-24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3-5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6-8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38-46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26-31%)].

CONCLUSION

Rectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

Clinical effects of prophylactic transverse colostomy in patients undergoing completely laparoscopic transabdominal approach partial intersphincteric resection

Objective

To investigate the clinical effects of prophylactic transverse colostomy on gastrointestinal function recovery and complications in patients undergoing completely laparoscopic transabdominal approach partial intersphincteric resection (CLAPISR) of low rectal cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 74 patients with low rectal cancer who were treated with prophylactic transverse colostomy (Group A, n = 34) or without prophylactic transverse colostomy (Group B, n = 40). Surgery-related indicators, nutritional status indicators, systemic stress response indicators, and complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

On postoperative day 5, the C-reactive protein concentration and white blood cell count were not significantly different between the two groups; however, the serum concentrations of total protein and albumin were higher in Group A than in Group B. Within 26 months postoperatively, the total incidence rate of complications was not significantly different, but the incidence rate of anastomotic leakage was lower in Group A than in Group B.

Conclusion

Prophylactic transverse colostomy based on CLAPISR can lead to faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, better improvement of postoperative nutritional indicators, and a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage. These characteristics are conducive to the rapid recovery of patients, making this procedure worthy of clinical application.

Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection. The application of the robotic approach to ISR (RISR) has been described by few specialized surgical teams with several differences regarding approach and technique. This review aims to discuss the technical aspects of RISR by evaluating point by point each surgical controversy. Moreover, a systematic review was performed to report the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RISR. Postoperative morbidities after RISR are acceptable. RISR allows adequate surgical margins and adequate oncological outcomes. RISR may result in severe bowel and genitourinary dysfunction affecting the quality of life in a portion of patients.

Nomogram for Predicting the Probability of Permanent Stoma after Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for the development of a permanent stoma in laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (LS-ISR) for ultralow rectal adenocarcinoma and to develop and validate a prediction model to predict the probability of permanent stoma after surgery.

METHODS

A primary cohort consisting of 301 consecutive patients who underwent LS-ISR was enrolled in this study. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors and develop the nomogram. The performance of the nomogram was assessed with respect to its calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness. An independent validation cohort contained 91 consecutive patients from January 2012 to January 2019.

RESULTS

The permanent stoma rate was 11.3% (34/301) in the primary cohort and 18.7% (17/91) in the validation cohort. Multivariable analysis revealed that nCRT (OR, 3.195; 95% CI, 1.169-8.733; P=0.024), ASA score of 3 (OR, 5.062; 95% CI, 1.877-13.646; P=0.001), distant metastasis (OR, 14.645; 95% CI, 3.186-67.315; P=0.001), and anastomotic leakage (OR, 11.308; 95% CI, 3.650-35.035; P<0.001) were independent risk factors for permanent stoma, and a nomogram was established. The AUCs of the nomogram were 0.842 and 0.858 in the primary and validation cohorts, respectively. The calibration curves showed good calibration in both cohorts. Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the nomogram was clinically useful.

CONCLUSION

We developed and validated a nomogram for ultralow rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent LS-ISR, and the nomogram could help surgeons identify which patients are at a higher risk of a permanent stoma after surgery.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy as these remains unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively recruited eligible patients with rectal cancer undergoing robotic or laparoscopic surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We compared the surgical outcomes between patients undergoing either robotic surgery or laparoscopic surgery was based on the propensity-score matching analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were recruited, including 76 who underwent robotic surgery and 95 who underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in clinical and pathological characteristics between the groups after propensity-score matching (56 matched pairs). Longer operation times (324.964 ± 83.435 vs. 246.232 ± 111.324 min, p < 0.001) and more blood loss (187.679 ± 176.615 vs. 98.214 ± 107.011, p < 0.001) were observed in the robotic group. The major complication rates were similar between the treatment groups after propensity matching (p = 0.086). There were no significant differences in disease-free survival rates (p = 0.205) and overall survival rates (p = 0.837) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is associated with similar technical safety and oncologic efficacy compared to laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; it is an acceptable option for patients requiring minimally invasive surgery. Nevertheless, the longer operation times and greater blood loss seen in the present study are a stark reminder that the convenience and surgical precision, on which the marketing of robotic surgery is rooted, are yet to be proven and require further investigation.

Risk Factors for Anorectal Dysfunction After Interspincteric Resection in Patients With Low Rectal Cancer

Purpose: The objective of this study was to explore the risk factors for anorectal dysfunction after intersphincteric resection in patients with low rectal cancer. Methods: A total of 251 patients who underwent intersphincteric resection from July 2014 to June 2020 were included in this study, for which the Kirwan's grade, Wexner score, and anorectal manometric index were used to evaluate the anorectal function and other parameters including demographics, surgical features, and clinical and pathological characteristics. These parameters were analysed to explore the potential risk factors for anorectal function after intersphincteric resection. Results: In the 251 included patients, 98 patients underwent partial intersphincteric resection, 87 patients underwent subtotal intersphincteric resection, and 66 patients underwent total intersphincteric resection. There were 53 (21.1%) patients who had postoperative complications, while no significant difference was observed between the three groups. Furthermore, 30 patients (45.5%) in the total intersphincteric resection group were classified as having anorectal dysfunction (Kirwan's grade 3-5), which was significantly higher than that in the partial intersphincteric resection group (27.6%) and subtotal intersphincteric resection group (29.9%). The mean Wexner score of patients that underwent total intersphincteric resection was 7.9, which was higher than that of patients that had partial intersphincteric resection (5.9, p = 0.002) and subtotal intersphincteric resection (6.4, p = 0.027). The initial perceived volume was lower in the total intersphincteric resection group than in the partial and subtotal intersphincteric resection groups at 1, 3, and 6 months after intersphincteric resection. In addition, the resting pressure, maximum squeeze pressure, and maximum tolerated volume in the total intersphincteric resection group were worse than those in the partial and subtotal groups at 3 and 6 months after intersphincteric resection. Univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that an age ≥65, total intersphincteric resection, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were independent risk factors for anorectal dysfunction (P = 0.023, P = 0.003, and P = 0.008, respectively). Among the 66 patients who underwent total intersphincteric resection, 17 patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy, of which 12 patients (70.6%) were classified as having anorectal dysfunction. Conclusion: The current study concluded that age ≥65, total intersphincteric resection, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were risk factors for anorectal dysfunction after intersphincteric resection. The morbidity of anorectal dysfunction after total intersphincteric resection for patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy was relatively high, and the indication should be carefully evaluated.

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS).

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I², and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

Results

Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD =  − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE.

Conclusion

RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7.

Systemic inflammatory response in robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer (SIRIRALS): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is being increasingly adopted in treating colorectal cancer, and the transition from laparoscopic surgery to robot-assisted surgery is a trend. The evidence of the benefits of robot-assisted surgery is sparse. However, findings are associated with improved patient-related outcomes and overall morbidity rates compared to laparoscopic surgery. This induction is unclear, considering both surgical modalities are characterized as minimally invasive. This study aims to evaluate the systemic and peritoneal inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery for elective colon cancer resections in a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Methods

This study is a single-centre randomized controlled superiority trial with 50 colon cancer participants. The primary endpoint is the level of systemic inflammatory response expressed as serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels between postoperative days one and three. Secondary endpoints include (i) levels of systemic inflammation in serum expressed by a panel of inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines measured during the first three postoperative days, (ii) postoperative surgical and medical complications (30 days) according to Clavien-Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index, (iii) intraoperative blood loss, (iv) conversion rate to open surgery, (v) length of surgery, (vi) operative time, (vii) the number of harvested lymph nodes, and (viii) length of hospital stay. The exploratory endpoints are (i) levels of peritoneal inflammatory response in peritoneal fluid expressed by inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines between postoperative day one and three, (ii) patient-reported health-related quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15), (iii) 30 days mortality rate, (iv) heart rate variability and (v) gene transcript (mRNA) analysis.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first clinical randomized controlled trial to clarify the inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer resections.

Trial registration This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04687384) on December, 29, 2020, Regional committee on health research ethics, Region of Southern Denmark (N75709) and Data Protection Agency, Hospital Sønderjylland, University Hospital of Southern Denmark (N20/46179).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01355-4.

Anus-Preserving Surgery in Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: A Perspective on Oncological Safety of Intersphincteric Resection

The surgical management of low-lying rectal cancer, within 5 cm from the anal verge (AV), is challenging due to the possibility, or not, to preserve the anus with its sphincter muscles maintaining oncological safety. The standardization of total mesorectal excision, the adoption of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the implementation of rectal magnetic resonance imaging, and the evolution of mechanical staplers have increased the rate of anus-preserving surgeries. Moreover, extensive anatomy and physiology studies have increased the understanding of the complexity of the deep pelvis. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) was introduced nearly three decades ago as the ultimate anus-preserving surgery. The definition and indication of ISR have changed over time. The adoption of the robotic platform provides excellent perioperative results with no differences in oncological outcomes. Pushing the boundaries of anus-preserving surgeries has risen doubts on oncological safety in order to preserve function. This review critically discusses the oncological safety of ISR by evaluating the anatomical characteristics of the deep pelvis, the clinical indications, the role of distal and circumferential resection margins, the role of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the outcomes between surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic), the comparison with abdominoperineal resection, the risk factors for oncological outcomes and local recurrence, the patterns of local recurrences after ISR, considerations on functional outcomes after ISR, and learning curve and surgical education on ISR.

Options for Low Rectal Cancer: Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision

Low rectal cancers (LRCs) may offer a difficult technical challenge even to experienced colorectal surgeons. Although laparoscopic surgery offers a superior exposure of the pelvis when compared with open approach, its role in rectal cancer surgery has been controversial. Robotic platforms are well suited for difficult pelvic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, degree of articulation of instruments, precise movements, and better ergonomics. The robot may be suitable especially in the anatomically narrow pelvis such as in male and obese patients. Meticulous dissection in critical steps, such as splenic flexure takedown, nerve-sparing mesorectal excision, and distal margin clearance, are potential technical advantages. In addition, robotic rectal resections are associated with lower conversion rates to open surgery, less blood loss, and shorter learning curve with similar short-term quality of life outcomes, similar rates of postoperative complications, and equivalent short-term surrogate outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery approach, if used correctly, can enhance the skills and the capabilities of the well-trained surgeon during minimally invasive procedures for LRC.

Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

The minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision is a complex and challenging procedure due to technical and anatomical issues which could impair postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes, especially in a defined subgroup of patients. The results from recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery are still conflicting and trans-anal bottom-up approaches have recently been developed. Robotic surgery represents the latest consistent innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery that may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy thanks to an enhanced dexterity, especially in deep narrow operative fields such as the pelvis. Results from population-based multicenter studies have shown the potential advantages of robotic surgery when compared to its laparoscopic counterpart in terms of reduced conversions, complication rates and length of stay. Costs, often advocated as one of the main drawbacks of robotic surgery, should be thoroughly evaluated including both the direct and indirect costs, with the latter having the potential of counterbalancing the excess of expenditure directly related to the purchase and maintenance of robotic equipment. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required to better delineate the advantages of the robotic platform, especially in the subset of most complex and technically challenging patients from both an anatomical and oncological standpoint.

Robotic surgery in colon cancer: current evidence and future perspectives – narrative review

In the last 10 years, surgery has been developing towards minimal invasiveness; therefore, robotic surgery represents the consequent evolution of laparoscopic surgery. Worldwide, surgeons’ performances have been upgraded by the ergonomic developments of robotic systems, leading to several benefits for patients. The introduction into the market of the new Da Vinci Xi system has made it possible to perform all types of surgery on the colon, an in selected cases, to combine interventions in other organs or viscera at the same time. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. From this perspective, single-port robotic colectomy, has reduced the number of robotic ports needed, allowing a better anesthetic outcome and faster recovery. The introduction on the market of new surgical robotic systems from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes.

Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and "Micro Hand S" robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The Micro Hand S robot is a new surgical tool that has been applied to total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer in our center. In this study, we compared the operative outcomes, functional outcomes and learning curves of the Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME).

METHODS

A total of 40 patients who underwent RTME and 65 who underwent LTME performed by a single surgeon between July 2015 and November 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Clinicopathologic characteristics, operative and functional outcomes, and learning curves were compared between the two groups. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum method and two stages (Phase 1, Phase 2) were identified and analyzed. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months.

RESULTS

The clinicopathologic characteristics of the two groups were similar. The learning curve was 17 cases for RTME and 34 cases for LTME. Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with less blood loss (148.2 vs. 195.0 ml, p = 0.022), and shorter length of hospital stay (9.5 vs. 12.2 days, p = 0.017), even during the learning period. With the accumulation of experience, the operative time decreased significantly from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (RTME, 360.6 vs. 323.5 min, p = 0.009; LTME, 338.1 vs. 301.9 min, p = 0.005), whereas other outcomes did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME is safe and feasible even during the learning period, with outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery but superior in terms of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and learning curve. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04836741, retrospectively registered on 5 April 2021.

Robotic Surgery in Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The most effective and curative treatment is surgery, and the standard procedure is total mesorectal excision, initially performed by open surgery and posteriorly by minimally invasive techniques. Robotic surgery is an emerging technology that is expected to overcome the limitations of the laparoscopic approach. It has several advantages, including a stable camera platform with high definition three-dimensional image, flexible instruments with seven degrees of freedom, a third arm for fixed retraction, fine motion scaling, excellent dexterity, ambidextrous capability, elimination of physiological tremors and better ergonomics, that facilitate a steady and precise tissue dissection. The main technical disadvantages are the loss of tactile sensation and tensile feedback and the complex installation process. The aim of the present study is to review the importance and benefits of robotic surgery in rectal cancer, particularly in comparison with the laparoscopic approach. Intraoperative estimated blood loss, short and long-term outcomes as well as pathological outcomes were similar between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The operative time is usually longer in robotic surgery and the high costs are still its major drawback. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer demonstrated lower conversion rate to open surgery and benefits in urinary and sexual functions and has been established as a safe and feasible technique.

Improved perioperative outcomes and reduced inflammatory stress response in malignant robot-assisted colorectal resections: a retrospective cohort study of 298 patients

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of colorectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for adopting this technique is still limited. This study’s main objective was to compare short-term complication rates, oncological outcomes, and the inflammatory stress response after colorectal resection for cancer performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the robot-assisted approach to laparoscopic surgery for elective malignant colorectal neoplasm. Certified colorectal and da Vinci ® robotic surgeons performed resections at a Danish tertiary colorectal high volume center from May 2017 to March 2019. We analyzed the two surgical groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses to detect differences in intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and the inflammatory stress response.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Significant differences favoring robot-assisted surgery was demonstrated for; length of hospital stay (4 days, interquartile range (4, 5) versus 5 days, interquartile range (4–7), p < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss (50 mL, interquartile range (20–100) versus 100 mL, interquartile range (50–150), p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. The inflammatory stress response was significantly higher after laparoscopic compared to robot-assisted surgery reflected by an increase in C-reactive protein concentration (exponentiated coefficient = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (1.06–1.46), p = 0.008). No differences between the two groups were found concerning mortality, microradical resection rate, conversion to open surgery, and surgical or medical short-term complication rates.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery is feasible and can be safely implemented for colorectal resections. The robot-assisted approach, when compared to laparoscopic surgery, was associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes. Extensive prospective studies are needed to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

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.

Risk factors for local recurrence and long term survival after minimally invasive intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: Multivariate analysis in 161 patients

INTRODUCTION

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anal-sparing technique as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection in selected patients. Oncological safety is still debated. This study analyses long-term oncological results and evaluates risk factors for local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS) after minimally-invasive ISR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective single-center data were collected from a prospectively maintained colorectal database. A total of 161 patients underwent ISR between 2008 and 2018. OS and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank test). Risk factors for OS and LRFS were assessed with Cox-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 55 months. LR occurred in 18 patients. OS and LRFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96%, 91%, and 80% and 96%, 89%, and 87%, respectively. Tumor size (p = 0.035) and clinical T-stage (p = 0.029) were risk factors for LRFS on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, tumor size (HR 2.546 (95% CI: 0.976-6.637); p = 0.056) and clinical T-stage (HR 3.296 (95% CI: 0.941-11.549); p = 0.062) were not significant. Preoperative CEA (p < 0.001), pathological T-stage (p = 0.033), pathological N-stage (p = 0.016) and adjuvant treatment (p = 0.008) were prognostic factors for OS on univariate analysis. Preoperative CEA (HR 4.453 (95% CI: 2.015-9.838); p < 0.001) was a prognostic factor on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the oncological safety of minimally-invasive ISR for locally advanced low-lying rectal tumors when performed in experienced centers. Despite not a risk factor for LR, tumor size and, locally advanced T-stage with anterior involvement should be carefully evaluated for optimal surgical strategy. Preoperative CEA is a prognostic factor for OS.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Hype or Hope? (Indian Experience)

The primary goal to achieve cure in oncology is to reduce recurrence, maximize disease-free survival, maintain function, and optimize quality of life. Surgery remains the mainstay treatment modality in rectal cancer. The current trend is to perform least invasive method of doing complex surgeries while not compromising in the oncological of functional outcomes of patients. Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery entails removal of the rectum with its fascia as an intact unit while preserving surrounding vital structures. The procedure is technically challenging because of the narrow and deep pelvic cavity housing the rectum encased by fatty lymph vascular tissue within the perirectal fascia, distally the anal sphincter complex, and an intimate surrounded by vital structures like ureter, vessels, and nerves. Robotic technology enables overcoming these difficulties caused by complex pelvic anatomy. This system can facilitate better preservation of the pelvic autonomic nerve and thereby achieve favorable postoperative sexual and voiding functions after rectal cancer surgery. The nerve-preserving TME technique includes identification and preservation of the superior hypogastric plexus nerve, bilateral hypogastric nerves, pelvic plexus, and neurovascular bundles.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer

Minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated many benefits in general surgery, particularly in colon and rectal procedures. On the other hand, it has some limitations that must be taken into account, especially technical drawback. Robotic surgery has incorporated many improvements to overcome this disadvantage, such as 3D visualization, articulating instruments assisting complex and precise movements. As a result, robotic colorectal surgery shows less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to oral tolerance and initial flatus (particularly associated with "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" protocol), less conversion rate to open surgery, shortened hospital stay, and longer distal margins compared to laparoscopic and open surgery. This approach also shows a shorter learning curve. Some studies suggest that it could decrease perioperatively or 30 days after the intervention's mortality, raise overall survival, reduce wound infection, and improve functional results, while others show no significant difference. However, it lengthens surgical time. Otherwise, the studies included do not show statistically significant changes in the number of resected lymph nodes and anastomotic leaks. Economic costs remain one of the major concerns, although to date there are no large-scale studies that have evaluated this aspect from a global point of view. Robotic surgery represents a qualitative leap in surgical instruments and, although there is no strong evidence in favor of the use of robotic surgery over laparoscopic or open surgery, there is enough evidence to support its use in colorectal surgery, with potential advantages for patients.

Current Surgical Strategies for the Treatment of Rectal Adenocarcinoma and the Risk of Local Recurrence

BACKGROUND

Despite new medical and surgical strategies, 5-year local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma was reported in up to 25% of cases. Therefore, we aimed to review surgical strategies for the prevention of local recurrences in rectal cancer.

SUMMARY

After implementation of the total mesorectal excision (TME), surgical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma with anterior resection or abdominoperineal excision (APE) allowed decrease in local recurrence (3% at 5 years). More recently, extralevator APE was described as an alternative to APE, decreasing specimen perforation and recurrence rate. Moreover, technique modifications were developed to optimize rectal resection, such as the laparoscopic or robotic approach, and transanal TME. However, the technical advantages conferred by these techniques did not translate into a decreased recurrence rate. Lateral lymph node dissection is another technique, which aimed at improving the long-term outcomes; nevertheless, there is currently no evidence to recommend its routine use. Strategies to preserve the rectum are also emerging, such as local excision, and may be beneficial for subgroups of patients. Key Messages: Rectal cancer management requires a multidisciplinary approach, and surgical strategy should be tailored to patient factors: general health, previous perineal intervention, anatomy, preference, and tumor characteristics such as stage and localization.

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.

[Robot-assisted operations in visceral surgery]

BACKGROUND

Although only a low percentage of abdominal surgical interventions are performed using a robotic platform, the total number has significantly increased in recent years and robotic surgery (RS) is no longer limited only to university hospitals. Despite the increasing popularity and many innovations in the field of robotic surgery with new devices, the data situation is confusing.

OBJECTIVE

This review deals with the current areas of application of robotic devices in abdominal surgery and whether there are any advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The current international literature was evaluated and is critically discussed with a particular focus on clinical trials.

RESULTS

While the disadvantages include high costs and longer times of surgery, the advantages are a stable optical platform and the high mobility even in confined spaces; however, no high-quality, randomized controlled trial in abdominal surgery is currently available that could demonstrate an advantage of RS compared to LS.

CONCLUSION

Although no clear advantages of RS for the patients could so far be demonstrated, it seems to be at least equivalent to LS. Undisputed is the level of comfort for the surgeon. Once the costs of RS can be reduced, LS will probably be replaced for most indications.

Latest Advances in Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Background

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been a preferable alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal preservation in patients with low rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ISR and robotic ISR have been widely used with the proposal of 2 cm or even 1 cm rule of distal free margin and the development of minimally invasive technology. The aim of this review was to describe the newest advancements of ISR.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify studies on ISR techniques, preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT), complications, oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes and thereby to summarize relevant information and controversies involved in ISR.

Results

Although PCRT is employed to avoid positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and decrease local recurrence, it tends to engender damage of anorectal function and patients' quality of life (QoL). Common complications after ISR include anastomotic leakage (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), urinary retention, fistula, pelvic sepsis, and prolapse. CRM involvement is the most important predictor for local recurrence. Preoperative assessment and particularly rectal endosonography are essential for selecting suitable patients. Anal dysfunction is associated with age, PCRT, location and growth of anastomotic stoma, tumour stage, and resection of internal sphincter.

Conclusions

The ISR technique seems feasible for selected patients with low rectal cancer. However, the postoperative QoL as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.

Optimising functional outcomes in rectal cancer surgery

Background

By improved surgical technique such as total mesorectal excision (TME), multimodal treatment and advances in imaging survival and an increased rate of sphincter preservation have been achieved in rectal cancer surgery. Minimal-invasive approaches such as laparoscopic, robotic and transanal-TME (ta-TME) enhance recovery after surgery. Nevertheless, disorders of bowel, anorectal and urogenital function are still common and need attention.

Purpose

This review aims at exploring the causes of dysfunction after anterior resection (AR) and the accordingly preventive strategies. Furthermore, the indication for low AR in the light of functional outcome is discussed. The last therapeutic strategies to deal with bowel, anorectal, and urogenital disorders are depicted.

Conclusion

Functional disorders after rectal cancer surgery are frequent and underestimated. More evidence is needed to define an indication for non-operative management or local excision as alternatives to AR. The decision for restorative resection should be made in consideration of the relevant risk factors for dysfunction. In the case of restoration, a side-to-end anastomosis should be the preferred anastomotic technique. Further high-evidence clinical studies are required to clarify the benefit of intraoperative neuromonitoring. While the function of ta-TME seems not to be superior to laparoscopy, case-control studies suggest the benefits of robotic TME mainly in terms of preservation of the urogenital function. Low AR syndrome is treated by stool regulation, pelvic floor therapy, and transanal irrigation. There is good evidence for sacral nerve modulation for incontinence after low AR.

A roadmap for robotic-assisted sigmoid resection in diverticular disease using a Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System: results and technical aspects

Since the turn of the century, robotic-assisted colorectal surgery has been synonymous with the da Vinci® robotic surgical system. We report in this study our first results in robotic-assisted sigmoid resection for diverticular disease using the Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System, while introducing a standardized roadmap for engaging the robotic arms. 12 patients underwent a sigmoid resection using the Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System. All four arms of the robotic system were engaged during all procedures according to a previously devised roadmap. A 4-trocar technique was used in all patients. Perioperative data, including those regarding technical difficulties, were collected and analyzed. Two procedures were converted into standard laparoscopy. There were no conversions to open surgery. The mean age of the patients was 62.5 years (47-79). One third of the patients were males. The mean BMI was 27 kg/m2 (19-38). The mean operative time, the mean console time and the mean docking time were 219 min (204-305), 149 min (124-205) and 10 min (6-15), respectively. The mean length of stay was 9 days (6-15). There was one major complication (8.3%, Clavien-Dindo IIIb). There were no mortalities. No other complications were observed. No patients were readmitted after discharge. The Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System can be used safely in sigmoid resection for diverticular disease after adequate training and systematic planning of the different steps of the procedure. Further experience is needed to judge the benefit for patient and surgeon, as well as the cost and time effectiveness.

An observational study of patho-oncological outcomes of various surgical methods in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single center analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with or without neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the treatment for rectal cancer (RC). Recently, the use of conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic-assisted surgery (RS) has been on a steady increase cases. However, various oncological outcomes from different surgical approaches are still under investigation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study comprising 300 consecutive RC patients who underwent various techniques of TME (RS, n = 88; LS, n = 37; Open surgery, n = 175) at a single center of real world data to compare the pathological and oncological outcomes, with a median follow-up of 48 months.

RESULTS

Upon multivariate analysis, histologic grade (P = 0.016), and stage (P < 0.001) were the independent factors of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis determined RS, early pathologic stage, negative CRM involvement, and pathologic complete response to be significantly associated with better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (all P < 0.05). Multivariable analyses observed the surgical method (P = 0.037), histologic grade (P = 0.006), and CRM involvement (P = 0.043) were the independent factors of DFS, whereas histologic grade (P = 0.011) and pathologic stage (P = 0.022) were the independent prognostic variables of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined that RS TME is feasible because it has less CRM involvement and better oncological outcomes than the alternatives have. The significant factors influencing CRM and prognosis depended on the histologic grade, tumor depth, and pre-operative CCRT. RS might be an acceptable option owing to the favorable oncological outcomes for patients with RC undergoing TME.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature

The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly increased in Japan, since the government approved the procedure for national insurance coverage in April 2018. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome some limitations of laparoscopic surgery, especially in the narrow pelvis, providing a three-dimensional view, articulated instruments, and a stable camera platform. Although meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate the superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery with respect to the short-term clinical outcomes, the published findings suggest that robotic surgery may be potentially beneficial for patients who are obese, male, or patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. The safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for lateral lymph node dissection, the standard procedure for locally advanced lower rectal cancer in Japan, have been demonstrated in some retrospective studies. However, additional prospective, randomized trials are required to determine the actual benefits of robotic surgery to ameliorate the urogenital and oncological outcomes. The cost of this approach is a long-standing principal concern. A literature search showed that the cost of robotic surgery for rectal cancer was 1.3-2.5 times higher per patient than that for the laparoscopic approach. We herein describe our surgical technique using a da Vinci Surgical System (S/Si/Xi) with 10 years of experience in performing robotic surgery. We also review current evidence regarding short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes, lateral lymph node dissection, and the cost of the procedure.