Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: may it improve also survival?

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide recommendations for clinical practice and prevention of postoperative complications, such as circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, and compare the amount of intraoperative bleeding, safety, operative time, recovery, outcomes, and clinical significance of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures in anus-preserving rectal cancer.

Methods

A literature search (PubMed) was performed to identify biomedical research papers and abstracts of studies comparing robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures. We attempted to obtain the full-text link for papers published between 2000 and 2016, and hand-searched references for relevant literature. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Nine papers (949 patients) were eligible for inclusion; there were 473 patients (49.8%) in the robotic group and 476 patients (50.2%) in the laparoscopic group. According to the data provided in the literature, seven indicators were used to complete the evaluation. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that robot-assisted procedure was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] −41.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] −77.51, −4.79; P=0.03), lower open conversion rate (risk difference [RD] −0.05; 95% CI −0.09, −0.01; P=0.02), lower hospital stay (MD −1.07; 95% CI −1.80, −0.33; P=0.005), lower overall complication rate (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.41, 0.83; P=0.003), and longer operative time (MD 33.73; 95% CI 8.48, 58.99; P=0.009) compared with conventional laparoscopy. There were no differences in the rate of CRM involvement (RD −0.02; 95% CI −0.05, 0.01; P=0.23) and days to return of bowel function (MD −0.03; 95% CI −0.40, 0.34; P=0.89).

Conclusion

The Da Vinci robot was superior to laparoscopy with respect to blood loss, open conversion, hospital stay, and postoperative complications during anus-preserving rectal cancer procedures; however, conventional laparoscopy had an advantage regarding operative time. The remaining indicators (CRMs and recovery from intestinal peristalsis) did not differ.

Operative blood loss and use of blood products after full robotic and conventional low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer

To date, no studies have investigated the estimated blood loss (EBL) after full robotic low anterior resection (R-LAR) in a case-matched model, comparing it with the conventional open approach (O-LAR). Forty-nine patients in the R-LAR and 105 in the O-LAR group were matched for age, gender, BMI (body mass index), ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) class, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification and UICC (Union for International Cancer Control) stage, distance of the lower edge of the tumor from the anal verge, presence of comorbidities, and preoperative hemoglobin (Hb). EBL was significantly higher in the O-LAR group (P < 0.001); twelve units of packed red blood cells were globally transfused in the O-LAR group, compared to one unit only in the R-LAR (P = 0.051). A significantly higher postoperative Hb drop (3.0 vs. 2.4 g/dL, P = 0.015) was registered in the O-LAR patients. The length of hospital stay was much lower for the R-LAR group (8.4 vs. 12.4 days, P < 0.001). The number of harvested lymph nodes (17.4 vs. 13.5, P = 0.006) and extent of distal margin (2.9 vs. 1.9 cm, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the R-LAR group. Open surgery was confirmed as the sole variable significantly associated (P < 0.001) with blood loss (odds ratio = 4.41, 95% CI 2.06-9.43). It was a confirmed prognosticator of blood loss (P = 0.006) when a preoperative clinical predictive model was built, using multivariate analysis (odds ratio = 3.95, 95% CI 1.47-10.6). In conclusion, R-LAR produced less operative blood loss and less drop in postoperative hemoglobin when compared to O-LAR. Other clinically relevant outcomes were similar or superior to O-LAR.