Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

Association of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Total Mesorectal Excision and Margin Status for Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Despite being a key metric with a significant correlation with the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) has not yet been identified. The aim of this study was to assess the association of the surgical approach on the quality of TME and surgical margins and to characterize the surgical and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open TME for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with primary, nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent either lower anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection via robotic (Rob), laparoscopic (Lap), or open approaches were selected from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database (2007-2017). Quasi-Poisson regression analysis with backward selection was used to investigate the relationship between the surgical approach and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Among the 664 patients included in the study, the distribution of surgical approaches was as follows: 351 (52.9%) underwent TME via the open approach, 159 (23.9%) via the robotic approach, and 154 (23.2%) via the laparoscopic approach. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics among the three cohorts. The laparoscopic cohort had fewer patients with low rectal cancer (<6 cm from the anal verge) than the robotic and open cohorts (Lap 28.6% versus Rob 59.1% versus Open 45.6%, P = 0.015). Patients who underwent Rob and Lap TME had lower intraoperative blood loss compared with the Open approach (Rob 200 mL [Q1, Q3: 100.0, 300.0] versus Lap 150 mL [Q1, Q3: 75.0, 250.0] versus Open 300 mL [Q1, Q3: 150.0, 600.0], P < 0.001). There was no difference in the operative time (Rob 243 min [Q1, Q3: 203.8, 300.2] versus Lap 241 min [Q1, Q3: 186, 336] versus Open 226 min [Q1, Q3: 178, 315.8], P = 0.309) between the three approaches. Postoperative length of stay was shorter with robotic and laparoscopic approach compared to open approach (Rob 5.0 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8.2] versus Lap 5 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8] versus Open 7.0 d [Q1, Q3: 5, 9], P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches (79.2%, 64.9%, and 64.7%, respectively; P = 0.46). The margin positivity rate, a composite of circumferential margin and distal margin, was higher with the robotic and open approaches than with the laparoscopic approach (Rob 8.2% versus Open 6.6% versus Lap 1.9%, P = 0.17), Rob versus Lap (odds ratio 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.05, 0.83) and Rob versus Open (odds ratio 0.5; 95% confidence interval 0.22, 1.12). There was no difference in long-term survival, including overall survival and recurrence-free survival, between patients who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open TME (Figure 1).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing surgery with curative intent for rectal cancer, we did not observe a difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, or open approaches. Robotic and open TME compared to laparoscopic TME were associated with higher margin positivity rates in our study. This was likely due to the higher percentage of low rectal cancers in the robotic and open cohorts. We also reported no significant differences in overall survival and recurrence-free survival between the aforementioned surgical techniques.

[Robotic rectal surgery]

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent cancerous diseases in industrial nations, whereby tumors of the rectum constitute approximately 30-40% of all colorectal cancers. In addition to the implementation and establishment of novel neoadjuvant concepts for the treatment of rectal cancer, there has been a continuous evolution of surgical techniques in recent years towards minimally invasive surgery. In this respect robot-assisted surgery has become more and more popular despite seemingly weak evidence regarding clinical benefits and the not to be ignored economic aspects; however, recently published high-quality studies provide new evidence showing advantages for a robotic resection in patients suffering from rectal cancer. Thus, the progressive implementation of robotic surgical systems is increasingly attaining a scientific foundation.

Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excisions: A Propensity-Score Matched Cohort study of 5-year survival outcomes

Objective

To compare long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) for rectal cancer in a tertiary center.

Background

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has comparable long-term outcomes to the open approach, with several advantages in short-term outcomes. However, it has significant technical limitations, which the robotic approach aims to overcome.

Methods

We included patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic TME surgery between 2013 and 2021. The groups were compared after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and short-term surgical and patient-related outcomes.

Results

A total of 594 patients were included, and after propensity-score matching 215 patients remained in each group. There was a significant difference in 5-year OS (72.4% for laparoscopy vs 81.7% for robotic, P = 0.029), but no difference in 5-year LR (4.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.850), DR (16.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.390), or DFS (63.9% vs 74.4%, P = 0.086). The robotic group had significantly less conversion (3.7% vs 0.5%, P = 0.046), shorter length of stay [7.0 (6.0-13.0) vs 6.0 (4.0-8.0), P < 0.001), and less postoperative complications (63.5% vs 50.7%, P = 0.010).

Conclusions

This study shows a correlation between higher 5-year OS and comparable long-term oncological outcomes for robotic TME surgery compared to the laparoscopic approach. Furthermore, lower conversion rates, a shorter length of stay, and a less minor postoperative complications were observed. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is a safe and favorable alternative to the traditional approaches.

Is Robotic Surgery Beneficial for Rectal Cancer Patients with Unfavorable Characteristic After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy?

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare long-term oncologic outcomes of robot and laparoscopic surgeries for patients with advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by radical resection.

METHODS

This study analyzed 3240 rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery from 2008 to 2019. Among them, 1204 patients who received nCRT (robotic, n = 316; laparoscopic, n = 888) were analyzed. The oncological outcome according to the number of unfavorable factors (male, body mass index ≥ 25, receiving CCRT) present in patients also was analyzed. We used 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for potential baseline confounders between groups.

RESULTS

After PSM, two groups showed similar demographics and pathological results. After PSM analysis, the robotic group showed higher 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and local recurrence-free survival rates than the laparoscopic group, whereas 5-year overall survival and distant recurrence-free survival rates were similar between the two groups. In addition, by comparing survival rates for each yp stage, it was found 5-year DFS and local recurrence-free survival of the robotic group in yp stage III were significantly higher than those of the laparoscopic group. Five-year DFS was conducted according to the number of unfavorable factors (male, body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, and undergoing nCRT) as a subgroup analysis. In patients with all three unfavorable factors, the robotic group showed significantly higher DFS than the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach for rectal cancer after nCRT, especially for patients with yp stage III and unfavorable factors, have the advantage of improving oncologic outcomes even for surgeons specializing in colorectal cancer.

Outcome of Colorectal Robotic Surgery in Newly Established Robotic Surgery Center: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

The robotic platform compared to laparoscopy has proven to have similar postoperative outcomes, however its adoption in the Middle East has been slow and there is limited data regarding outcomes with its use in small newly established robotic colorectal programs. Our aim was to report our experience and outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare them to larger, more experienced centers.

METHODS

This is retrospective review of data collected between November 2021 and March 2023 from a tertiary health care referral center. The series included 51 patients who had elective or urgent robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who had emergency surgery were excluded. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and quality of oncological specimen.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity was 31.4% (n = 16 patients). Only 9.8% (n = 5) had serious morbidity of which three required interventions under general anesthesia. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR = 4), and there was no mortality. Of 17 rectal cancer resections, 88% had complete mesorectal excision, 15 of them were R0 resections, median lymph node harvested was 14 (IQR = 7) and two cases were converted to open. All the colon cancer resections had R0 resection, median lymph nodes harvested was 21 (IQR = 4) and none were converted to open.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery at a newly established center in a small country, when led by fellowship trained robotic colorectal surgeons, is safe and effective in terms of morbidity, mortality, conversion to open and specimen pathological quality.

Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study

The robotic platform matches or surpasses laparoscopic surgery in postoperative results. However, limited date and slow adoption are noticed in the middle east. We aimed to report outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare it to larger more experienced centers. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between 2021 and 2023 of 107 patients who had robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery was included in the study. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and the quality of oncological specimen. Of 107 patients, 57 were in the robotic and 50 were in the laparoscopic surgery groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in overall morbidity (46.8 vs. 53.2%, p = 0.9), serious morbidity (10.5 vs. 8%, p = 0.7), or mortality (0 vs. 4%, p = 0.2). Regarding oncological outcomes, there were no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of lymph node harvested (17.7 ± 6.9 vs 19.0 ± 9.7, p = 0.5), R0 resections (92.7 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.5), and the rate of complete mesorectal excision (92.7 vs. 71.4%, p = 0.19). The study found that the robotic group had an 86% reduction in conversion rate to open surgery compared to the laparoscopic group, despite including more obese and physically dependent patients (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.7, p = 0.01). Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective as laparoscopic surgery in smaller colorectal surgery programs led by fellowship-trained robotic surgeons, with outcomes comparable to those of larger programs.

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic low anterior resection using ArtiSential® versus robotic approach in patients with rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision using conventional straight fixed devices may be technically difficult because of the narrow and concave pelvis. Several laparoscopic articulating tools have been introduced as an alternative to robotic systems. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic low anterior resection using ArtiSential® and robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 682 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection  for rectal cancer from September 2018 to December 2021. Among them, 82 underwent laparoscopic surgery using ArtiSential® (group A) and 201 underwent robotic surgery (group B). A total of 73 [group A; 66.37 ± 11.62; group B 65.79 ± 11.34] patients were selected for each group using a propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics between group A and B. Mean operative time was longer in group B than A (163.5 ± 61.9 vs 250.1 ± 77.6 min, p < 0.001). Mean length of hospital stay was not significantly different between the two groups (6.2 ± 4.7 vs 6.7 ± 6.1 days, p = 0.617). Postoperative complications, reoperation, and readmission within 30 days after surgery were similar between the two groups. Pathological findings revealed that the circumferential resection margins were above 10 mm in both groups (11.00 ± 7.47 vs 10.17 ± 6.25 mm, p = 0.960). At least 12 lymph nodes were sufficiently harvested, with no significant difference in the number harvested between the groups (20.5 ± 9.9 vs 19.7 ± 7.3, p = 0.753).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic low anterior resection using ArtiSential® can achieve acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. ArtiSential®, a multi-joint and articulating device, may serve a feasible alternative approach to robotic surgery in rectal cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided injection of carbon nanoparticles suspension to label rectal cancer before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Localization of the primary tumor and ensuring safe distal surgical margins (DSMs) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) are challenging in locally advanced rectal cancers (LARCs). This study investigated the effectiveness of carbon nanoparticles suspension (CNS) for labeling the primary tumor and allowing precise tumor resection after nCRT.

Methods

Clinicopathological data of LARC patients who underwent nCRT followed by laparoscopic radical anal preservation surgery at our center between January 2018 and February 2023 were prospectively collected. The patients were divided into the CNS tattooed (CNS) and non-tattooed (control) groups. In the CNS group, CNS was injected in four quadrants on the anal side 1 cm away from the lower tumor margin. DSMs were determined through intraoperative distal rectal examination in the control group and observation of CNS tattoos in the CNS group. DSM lengths and positive DSM rates were compared between the two groups to analyse the feasibility and effectiveness of CNS for labeling LARCs before nCRT.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the basic demographic data, effectiveness of nCRT, or post-operative recovery rates between the two groups (all P > 0.05). In the CNS group, CNS tattoos were observed on the outside of the rectal wall, with an overall efficiency of 87.1% (27/31). The CNS group had fewer positive DSMs and safer DSM lengths (2.73 ± 0.88 vs 2.12 ± 1.15 cm, P = 0.012) than the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided injection of CNS tattoos before nCRT could effectively label the LARCs, ensuring safe DSMs during anus-preserving surgeries (Chictr.org.cn No.: ChiCTR2300068991).

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

INTRODUCTION

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: A Narrative Review and Description of the Technique

Robotic surgery may offer significant advantages for treating extraperitoneal rectal cancer. Although laparoscopy has been shown to be safe and effective, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging and is still performed in selected centers. Robotic anterior resection (RAR) may overcome the drawback of conventional laparoscopy, providing high-quality surgery with favorable oncological outcomes. Moreover, recent data show how RAR offers clinical and oncological benefits when affording difficult TMEs, such as low and advanced rectal tumors, in terms of complication rate, specimen quality, recurrence rate, and survival. This series aims to review the most recent and relevant literature, reporting mid- and long-term oncological outcomes and focusing on minimally invasive RAR for low rectal cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic approach may be associated with a lower risk of lung metastases compared to laparoscopic approach for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a multivariate analysis on long-term recurrence patterns

PURPOSE

Describe differences on recurrence patterns of mid-low rectal cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and low anterior resection between laparoscopic and robotic approach.

METHODS

Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database between 2006 and 2019. Demographics, clinicopathological features, recurrence, and survival were investigated. Cox regression analysis was performed for risk factor analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 160 patients (36 laparoscopic and 124 robotic) were included. Systemic recurrence rate was higher in laparoscopic group (27.8 vs 12.1%, p = 0.023). Liver recurrence was similar (11.1 vs 4.0%). Lung recurrence was higher after laparoscopy (19.4 vs 6.5%, p = 0.019). Time to lung recurrence was shorter after laparoscopy (13.0 months, IQR 4.0-20.0) compared to robotic (23.5 months, IQR 17.0-42.7) with no statistical significance. Time to liver recurrence was similar between laparoscopy (19.5 months, IQR 4.7-37.5) and robotic (19.0 months, IQR 10.5-33.0). Median overall survival after lung recurrence was different (p = 0.021) between laparoscopy (19.0 months, IQR 16.0-67.0) and robotic (74.0 months, IQR 50.2-112.2). OS after liver recurrence was similar between groups. Overall survival and lung disease-free survival were different between the two groups (p = 0.032 and p = 0.020), while liver disease-free survival and local recurrence-free survival were not. Laparoscopy (p = 0.030; HR 3.074, 95% CI: 1.112-8.496) was a risk factor for lung disease-free survival on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Lung recurrences were less frequent and with better overall survival in the robotic group. Liver recurrences were not influenced by choice of approach. Trials are needed to investigate why the robotic approach affects distant metastasis control.

Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Rectal Cancer: Real-World Experience over 8 Years of Multiple Institutions with High-Volume Robotic-Assisted Surgery

Simple Summary

The aim of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RRS) in hospitals with a high-volume of robotic-assisted surgeries. This study enrolled patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing RRS from three high-volume institutions from December 2011 to June 2020. Compared with other studies, our results revealed the equivalent or superior perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes. Hence, RRS is an effective, safe, and feasible technique for patients with rectal cancers in high-volume hospitals.

Abstract

The perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RRS) are unclear. This retrospective observational study enrolled patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing RRS from three high-volume institutions in Taiwan. Of the 605 enrolled patients, 301 (49.75%), 176 (29.09%), and 116 (19.17%) had lower, middle, and upper rectal cancers, respectively. Low anterior resection (377, 62.31%) was the most frequent surgical procedure. Intraoperative blood transfusion was performed in 10 patients (2%). The surgery was converted to an open one for one patient (0.2%), and ten (1.7%) patients underwent reoperation. The overall complication rate was 14.5%, including 3% from anastomosis leakage. No deaths occurred during surgery and within 30 days postoperatively. The positive rates of distal resection margin and circumferential resection margin were observed in 21 (3.5%) and 30 (5.0%) patients, respectively. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates for patients with stage I–III rectal cancer were 91.1% and 86.3%, respectively. This is the first multi-institutional study in Taiwan with 605 patients from three high-volume hospitals. The overall surgical and oncological outcomes were equivalent or superior to those estimated in other studies. Hence, RRS is an effective and safe technique for rectal resection in high-volume hospitals.

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

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

Local recurrence of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre cohort study evaluating the initial cases

PURPOSE

Evidence regarding local recurrence rates in the initial cases after implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is limited. This study aims to describe local recurrence rates in four large Dutch centres during their initial cases.

METHODS

Four large Dutch centres started with the implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision in respectively 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016. Patients who underwent robot-assisted total mesorectal excision with curative intent in an elective setting for rectal carcinoma defined according to the sigmoid take-off were included. Overall survival, disease-free survival, systemic recurrence, and local recurrence were assessed at 3 years postoperatively. Subsequently, outcomes between the initial 10 cases, cases 11-40, and the subsequent cases per surgeon were compared using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 531 patients were included. Median follow-up time was 32 months (IQR: 19-50]. During the initial 10 cases, overall survival was 89.5%, disease-free survival was 73.1%, and local recurrence was 4.9%. During cases 11-40, this was 87.7%, 74.1%, and 6.6% respectively. Multivariable Cox regression did not reveal differences in local recurrence between the different case groups.

CONCLUSION

Local recurrence rate during the initial phases of implantation of robot-assisted total mesorectal procedures is low. Implementation of the robot-assisted technique can safely be performed, without additional cases of local recurrence during the initial cases, if performed by surgeons experienced in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

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.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Oncological Outcomes

The treatment of rectal cancer is complex and involves specialized multidisciplinary care, although the tenet is still rooted in a high-quality total mesorectal excision. The robotic platform is one of many tools in the arsenal to assist dissection in the low pelvis. This article is a comprehensive review of the oncological outcome comparing robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, with a particular focus on total mesorectal excision. There is no statistical difference in total mesorectal grade, circumferential margin, distal margin, and lymph node harvest. Survival data are less mature, but there is also no difference in disease-free or overall survival between the two techniques. Although additional randomized trials are still needed to validate these findings, both techniques are currently acceptable in the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, and surgeon preference is paramount to safe and optimal resection.

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.

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 rectal resection preserves anorectal function: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Improving survival rates in rectal cancer patients has generated a growing interest in functional outcomes after total mesorectal excision (TME). The well-established low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score assesses postoperative anorectal impairment after TME. Our meta-analysis is the first to compare bowel function after open, laparoscopic, transanal, and robotic TME.

METHODS

All studies reporting functional outcomes after rectal cancer surgery (LARS score) were included, and were compared with a consecutive series of robotic TME (n = 48).

RESULTS

Thirty-two publications were identified, including 5 565 patients. Anorectal function recovered significantly better within one year after robotic TME (3.8 [95%CI -9.709-17.309]) versus laparoscopic TME (26.4 [95%CI 19.524-33.286]), p = 0.006), open TME (26.0 [95%CI 24.338-29.702], p = 0.002) and transanal TME (27.9 [95%CI 22.127-33.669], p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic TME enables better recovery of anorectal function compared to other techniques. Further prospective, high-quality studies are needed to confirm the benefits of robotic surgery.

Impact of Surgical Approach on Surgical Resection Quality in Mid- and Low Rectal Cancer, A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

AIM

To evaluate the evidence concerning the quality of surgical resection in laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RobTME) and transanal (TaTME) total mesorectal excision for mid-/low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was utilized to compare surgical resection involved in these 3 surgical techniques by using ADDIS software. Rates of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) were the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 34 articles, 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 32 non-RCTs, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data showed CRM positivity in 114 of 1763 LapTME procedures (6.5%), 54 of 1051 RobTME procedures (5.1%) and 60 of 1276 TaTME procedures (4.7%). There was no statistically significant difference among these 3 surgical approaches in terms of CRM involvement rates and all other surgical resection quality outcomes. The incomplete mesorectal excision rates were 9.6% (69/720) in the LapTME group, 1.9% (11/584) in the RobTME group and 5.6% (45/797) in the TaTME group. Pooled network analysis observed a higher but not statistically significant risk of incomplete mesorectum when comparing both LapTME with RobTME (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 0.48-11.17) and LapTME with TaTME (OR = 1.90; 95% CI = 0.99-5.25). By comparison, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best or second best in terms of CRM involvement, complete mesorectal excision, rate of distal resection margin (DRM) involvement and length of DRMs. In addition, RobTME achieved a greater mean tumor distance to the CRM than TaTME. It is worth noting that TaTME was most likely to be ranked the worst in terms of CRM involvement for intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Overall, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best in terms of the quality of surgical resection for the treatment of mid-/low rectal cancer. TaTME should be performed with caution in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

Robot Surgery Shows Similar Long-term Oncologic Outcomes as Laparoscopic Surgery for Mid/Lower Rectal Cancer but Is Beneficial to ypT3/4 After Preoperative Chemoradiation

BACKGROUND

The long-term oncologic efficacy of robotic surgery for patients with rectal cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate survival outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision for mid/low rectal cancer compared with those of laparoscopic surgery.

DESIGN

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis.

SETTING

The data of a tertiary academic institution was reviewed.

PATIENTS

A total of 705 patients underwent laparoscopic (n = 415) or robotic (n = 118) low anterior resection for stage I to III mid/low rectal cancer. A total of 118 patients in each group were selected from the original data set by using propensity score matching.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were 5-year disease-free survival, distant recurrence, and local recurrence.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were balanced in terms of basic characteristics, perioperative treatment, and pathological stage. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 80.5% in the laparoscopic group and 87.6% in the robotic group (p = 0.118). The 5-year distant recurrence rate and local recurrence rate were 19.0% and 4.2% in the laparoscopic group and 10.0% and 3.7% in the robotic group (p = 0.048 and p = 0.846). In a subgroup of patients who received preoperative chemoradiation and had ypT3/4 tumors, the 5-year distant recurrence and local recurrence rates were 44.8% and 5.0% in the laparoscopic group and 9.8% and 9.8% in the robotic group (p = 0.014 and p = 0.597).

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective nature of the study, potential selection bias with distinct demographics between the groups, and relatively small number of cases are limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for mid/low rectal cancer shows similar long-term oncologic outcomes with laparoscopic surgery but is beneficial to a certain group of patients with advanced rectal cancer with poor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Additional studies are required to confirm our results. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B546.

LA CIRUGA ROBTICA MUESTRA RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS A LARGO PLAZO SIMILARES A LA CIRUGA LAPAROSCPICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO MEDIO / BAJO, PERO ES VENTAJOSA EN CASOS YPT POSTQUIMIORADIOTERAPIA PREOPERATORIA

ANTECEDENTES:Se desconoce la eficacia oncológica a largo plazo de la cirugía robótica en pacientes con cáncer de recto.OBJETIVO:La finalidad de nuestro estudio fue el investigar los resultados de supervivencia de la escisión mesorrectal total robótica en casos de cáncer de recto medio / bajo en comparación con los de la cirugía laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Realizamos un análisis retrospectivo mono-céntrico.AJUSTE:Se revisaron los datos de una institución académica terciaria.PACIENTES:705 pacientes fueron sometidos a resección anterior baja laparoscópica (n = 415) o robótica (n = 118) para cáncer de recto medio / bajo en estadio I-III. Se seleccionó un total de 118 pacientes en cada grupo del conjunto de datos original utilizando el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión.RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:Éstos fueron, la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años, la recurrencia a distancia y la recurrencia local.RESULTADOS:Los dos grupos estaban equilibrados en cuanto a características básicas, tratamiento péri-operatorio y estadío patológico. La tasa de sobrevida libre de enfermedad a 5 años fue del 80,5% en el grupo laparoscópico y del 87,6% en el grupo robótico (p = 0,118). La tasa de recurrencia a distancia a 5 años y la tasa de recurrencia local fueron 19,0% y 4,2% en el grupo laparoscópico y 10,0% y 3,7% en el grupo robótico, respectivamente (p = 0,048 y p= 0,846). En el subgrupo de pacientes que recibieron quimio-radioterapia pré-operatoria y tenían tumores ypT3-4, las tasas de recidiva a distancia a 5 años y recidiva local fueron 44,8% y 5,0% en el grupo laparoscópico y 9,8% y 9,8% en el grupo robótico, respectivamente (p = 0.014 y p = 0.597).LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva del estudio, el posible sesgo en la selección con datos demográficos distintos entre los grupos y un número relativamente pequeño de casos son limitaciones importantes.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía robótica para el cáncer de recto medio / bajo muestra resultados oncológicos a largo plazo similares con la cirugía laparoscópica, pero es mas beneficiosa en ciertos grupos de cáncer de recto avanzado con mala respuesta a la quimio-radioterapia neoadyuvante. Se requieren más estudios para confirmar nuestros resultados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B546.).

Predictive and Diagnostic Biomarkers of Anastomotic Leakage: A Precision Medicine Approach for Colorectal Cancer Patients

Development of an anastomotic leak (AL) following intestinal surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancers is a life-threatening complication. Failure of the anastomosis to heal correctly can lead to contamination of the abdomen with intestinal contents and the development of peritonitis. The additional care that these patients require is associated with longer hospitalisation stays and increased economic costs. Patients also have higher morbidity and mortality rates and poorer oncological prognosis. Unfortunately, current practices for AL diagnosis are non-specific, which may delay diagnosis and have a negative impact on patient outcome. To overcome these issues, research is continuing to identify AL diagnostic or predictive biomarkers. In this review, we highlight promising candidate biomarkers including ischaemic metabolites, inflammatory markers and bacteria. Although research has focused on the use of blood or peritoneal fluid samples, we describe the use of implantable medical devices that have been designed to measure biomarkers in peri-anastomotic tissue. Biomarkers that can be used in conjunction with clinical status, routine haematological and biochemical analysis and imaging have the potential to help to deliver a precision medicine package that could significantly enhance a patient's post-operative care and improve outcomes. Although no AL biomarker has yet been validated in large-scale clinical trials, there is confidence that personalised medicine, through biomarker analysis, could be realised for colorectal cancer intestinal resection and anastomosis patients in the years to come.

The Micro Hand S vs. da Vinci Surgical Robot-Assisted Surgery on Total Mesorectal Excision: Short-Term Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Objective: To compare the operation mode and clinical short-term outcomes of the Micro Hand S and the da Vinci surgical robot, we chose total mesorectal excision (TME) as the standard procedure for its good reflection of robot-assisted surgery advantages.

Methods: We collected a total of 54 consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted TME by two surgical robots from January 2016 to October 2020. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to create balanced cohorts of Micro Hand S group (n = 14) and da Vinci group (n = 14). Robotic installation and operation time, hospital and surgery costs, and intraoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were compared.

Results: In terms of robotic installation time, the Micro Hand S robot took longer than the da Vinci robot (24.2 ± 9.4 min vs. 17.1 ± 5.1 min, P < 0.05). As for the costs, the Micro Hand S group had lower total hospital costs (87,040.1 ± 24,676.9 yuan vs. 125,292.3 ± 17,706.7 yuan, P < 0.05) and surgery costs (25,772.3 ± 4,117.0 yuan vs. 46,940.9 ± 10,199.7 yuan, P < 0.05) than the da Vinci group. There were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in other indicators, including total operation time, robotic operation time, blood loss, time to first liquid diet, time of getting out of bed, and hospital stay.

Conclusion: The Micro Hand S enables patients with rectal cancer to enjoy lower medical costs of robotic surgery.

Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02752698]

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the colon and rectum]

An essential component of the treatment of colorectal cancer is a resection of the tumor-bearing segment of the bowels. After the development of minimally invasive procedures the feasibility and safety in oncological, colorectal surgery was questioned. The broad study situation for colon cancer over the last years showed predominantly consistent benefits during the perioperative phase and non-inferiority concerning long-term oncological outcomes. The implementation of laparoscopic rectal resection was more hesitant due to the complexity of the procedure and insufficient study data; however, overall the short-term benefits seem to be maintained and laparoscopic rectal resection is thought to be noninferior to open resection in the long run even though findings on the quality of the resected specimen are heterogeneous. Accordingly, most guidelines now include a recommendation of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. The limitation with respect to an achievable oncological equivalency of resection takes account of the complexity and the requirements of the intervention only in the setting of rational selection of patients and sufficient experience of the surgeon.

Outcomes of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: an observational single hospital study of 300 cases

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery attempts to facilitate rectal surgery in the narrow space of the pelvis. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Monocentric retrospective study including 300 patients who underwent robotic (n = 178) or laparoscopic (n = 122) resection between Jan 2009 and Dec 2017 for high, mid and low rectal cancer. The robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable with regard to pretreatment characteristics, except for sex and ASA status. There were no statistical differences between groups in the conversion rate to open surgery. Surgical morbidity and oncological quality did not differ in either group, except for the anastomosis leakage rate and the affected distal resection margin. There were no differences in overall survival rate between the laparoscopic and robotic group. Robotic surgery could provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, such as three-dimensional views, articulated instruments, lower fatigue, lower conversion rate to open surgery, shorter hospital stays and lower urinary and sexual dysfunctions. On the other hand, robotic surgery usually implies longer operation times and higher costs. As shown in the ROLARR trial, no statistical differences in conversion rate were found between the groups in our study. When performed by experienced surgeons, robotic surgery for rectal cancer could be a safe and feasible option with no significant differences in terms of oncological outcomes in comparison to laparoscopic surgery.

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.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation alters biomarkers of anticancer immunotherapy responses in locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is a widely used preoperative treatment strategy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, a few studies have evaluated the molecular changes caused by neoadjuvant CRT in these cancer tissues. Here, we aimed to investigate changes in immunotherapy-related immunogenic effects in response to preoperative CRT in LARC.

METHODS

We analyzed 60 pairs of human LARC tissues before and after irradiation from three independent LARC cohorts, including a LARC patient RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) dataset from our cohort and GSE15781 and GSE94104 datasets.

RESULTS

Gene ontology analysis showed that preoperative CRT significantly enriched the immune response in LARC tissues. Moreover, gene set enrichment analysis revealed six significantly enriched Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathways associated with downregulated genes, including mismatch repair (MMR) genes, in LARC tissues after CRT in all three cohorts. Radiation also induced apoptosis and downregulated various MMR system-related genes in three colorectal cancer cells. One patient with LARC showed a change in microsatellite instability (MSI) status after CRT, as demonstrated by the loss of MMR protein and PCR for MSI. Moreover, CRT significantly increased tumor mutational burden in LARC tissues. CIBERSORT analysis revealed that the proportions of M2 macrophages and CD8 T cells were significantly increased after CRT in both the RNA-seq dataset and GSE94104. Notably, preoperative CRT increased various immune biomarker scores, such as the interferon-γ signature, the cytolytic activity and the immune signature.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, our findings demonstrated that neoadjuvant CRT modulated the immune-related characteristics of LARC, suggesting that neoadjuvant CRT may enhance the responsiveness of LARC to immunotherapy.

Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

To improve the quality of surgery for rectal cancer, both transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be performed. However, few studies have compared outcomes of taTME and R-TME, especially for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT). Thus, the objective of this study was to compare outcomes of taTME and R-TME for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT.

METHODS

A total of 306 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent taTME or R-TME after nCRT between 2008 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were classified into two groups: 1) taTME surgery group (n = 94); and 2) R-TME surgery group (n = 212).

RESULTS

Clinicopathologic variables were comparable between the two groups. There was no significant difference in circumference margin involvement (1.1% in taTME vs. 2.8% in R-TME, p = 0.680) or distal resection margin (2.3 cm in taTME vs. 2.4 cm in R-TME, p = 0.629). Total operation time (239 min in taTME vs. 243 min in R-TME, p = 0.675) and major complications (including anastomosis site leakage, surgical site infection, and voiding difficulty) showed no significant difference between the two groups either.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal and robotic TMEs have similar short-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT. High quality TME can be equally achieved with both transanal and robotic approaches.

Robotic rectal resection: oncologic outcomes

Robotic surgery has progressively gained popularity in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, only a few studies on its oncologic effectiveness are currently present, with contrasting results. The purpose of this study is to report a single surgeon’s experience on robotic rectal resection (RRR) for cancer, focusing on the analysis of oncologic outcomes, both in terms of pathological features and long-term results. One-hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients who underwent RRR for rectal cancer from January 2013 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes were collected. The analyzed oncologic outcomes were pathological features [distal (DM), circumferential margin (CRM) status and quality of mesorectal excision (TME)] and long-term outcomes [overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)]. The mean operative time was 275 (± 60.5) minutes. Conversion rate was 6.6%. Complications occurred in 27 cases (22.1%) and reoperation was needed in 2 patients (1.5%). The median follow-up was 30.5 (5.9–86.1) months. None presented DM positivity. CRM positivity was 2.5% (2 cases) while a complete TME was reached in 94.3% of cases (115 patients). Recurrence rate was 5.7% (2 local, 4 distant and 1 local plus distant tumor relapse). OS and DFS were 90.7% and 83%, respectively. At the multivariate analysis, both CRM positivity and near complete/incomplete TME were recognized as negative prognostic factors for OS and DFS. Under appropriate logistic and operative conditions, robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be oncologically effective, with adequate pathological results and long-term outcomes. It also offers acceptable peri-operative outcomes, further confirming the safety and feasibility of the technique.

Metachronous metastasis confined to isolated lymph node after curative treatment of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The incidence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in colorectal cancer is known to be 2-6%, but little data are available regarding metachronous metastasis confined to isolated LN. The aim of this study is to determine the distribution of isolated LNM and the risk factors for survival of isolated LNM in colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma between January 2008 and December 2015 at a tertiary referral center. A total of 5902 patients with biopsy-proven colorectal adenocarcinoma treated via surgery were included. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to identify prognostic factors for overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 5902 patients, recurrent cases were 1326. Among the relapsed patients, 301 patients had isolated LNM (22.69%). Para-aortic (48.8%), pelvic (29.9%), and Lung hilum (10.0%) were the most common sites of isolated LNM; there were statistically significant differences in the distribution of isolated LNM between the colon and rectal cancer (p = 0.02). Approximately 80% of isolated LNM were diagnosed within 3 years. Multidisciplinary therapy for LNM, diagnosis time to LNM, the T-stage, and histological type of primary cancer were identified as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that multidisciplinary management is a potentially effective treatment strategy for isolated LNM. Since time to LNM, the T-stage, and histological type are prognostic factors, an active follow-up program for colorectal cancer is required.

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.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives

Despite the technical limitations of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has short-term advantages over open surgery, but the pathological outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials are still in controversy. Minimally invasive robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) has recently been gaining popularity as robotic surgical systems potentially provide greater benefits than LTME. Compared to LTME, RTME is associated with lower conversion rates and similar or better genitourinary functions, but its long-term oncological outcomes have not been established. Although the operating time of RTME is longer than that of LTME, RTME has a shorter learning curve, is more convenient for surgeons, and is better for sphincter-preserving operations than LTME. The robotic surgical system is a good technical tool for minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer, especially in male patients with narrow deep pelvises. Robotic systems and robotic surgical techniques are still improving, and the contribution of RTME to the treatment of rectal cancer will continue to increase in the future.

Time interval between the completion of radiotherapy and robotic-assisted surgery among patients with stage I-III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

This aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of time interval between the completion of radiotherapy and robotic-assisted surgery on the outcomes among patients with rectal cancer undergoing preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

METHODS

In total, 116 patients with stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent preoperative CCRT and robotic-assisted surgery between September 2013 and February 2019 were enrolled. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the time interval: group A (10-12 weeks) and group B (≥ 12 weeks).

RESULTS

Among the 116 enrolled patients, 98 (84.5%) had middle and lower rectal cancers. Two (1.7%) patients underwent abdominoperineal resection with a sphincter preservation rate of 98.3%. Thirty-seven (31.9%) patients had a pathologic complete response (pCR). The circumferential resection margin and distal resection margin were positive in 2 (1.7%) and 1 (0.9%) patients, respectively. Therefore, the R0 resection rate was 97.4%. A total of 24 (22.4%) patients experienced postoperative relapse and 12 (10.3%) patients died; these were slightly more common in group B than in group A (28.8% vs 15.8% and 15.3% vs 5.3%, respectively; both P > 0.05); however, this difference was nonsignificant. Three-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 75% and 89%, respectively, among all patients. Non-significant trend of favorable 3-year DFS, 3-year OS, 3-year locoregional control rate and 3-year distant metastasis control rate were observed in group A compared with group B (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted surgery after a longer interval is safe and feasible for patients with rectal cancer undergoing preoperative CCRT. The present study's results suggested that the time interval of 10-12 weeks can be considered because comparable clinical and perioperative outcomes and preferable oncological outcomes were observed for interval of this length. However, future prospective randomized clinical trials are required to verify the present finding.

Operative and long-term oncological outcomes in patients undergoing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes after robotic versus laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective robotic and laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were included. Perioperative clinical characteristics, postoperative short- and long-term outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

There were 72 and 44 patients in robotic (RG) and laparoscopic (LG) groups respectively. No differences were detected regarding patients' demographics, histopathologic outcomes, conversion rates and 30-day overall postoperative complication rates. Operative time was longer in the RG (341 ± 111.7 vs. 263 ± 97.5 min, p = 0.001) and length of stay was longer in the LG (4.4 ± 1.9 vs. 6.4 ± 2.9 days, p = 0.001). The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar (97.1% and 94.9%, p = 0.78; 86.2% and 82.7%, p = 0.72) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

This study showed both short and long-term outcomes of a limited number of included patients between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery were similar. However, future studies and randomized trials are necessary to establish these findings.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic rectal surgery-from the real word data of 1145 consecutive cases in China

Background

Due to a limited patient sample size, substantial data on robotic rectal resection (RRR) is lacking. Here, we reported a large consecutive cases from the real word data to assess the safety and efficacy of RRR.

Methods

From September 2010 to June 2017, a total of 1145 consecutive RRR procedures were performed in patients with stage I–IV disease. We conducted an analysis based on information from a prospectively designed database to evaluate surgical outcomes, urogenital function, and long-term oncological outcomes.

Results

Of three types of RRR performed, 227 (24.2%) were abdominoperineal resections, 865 (75.5%) were anterior resections, and 3 (0.3%) were Hartmann. Conversion to an open procedure occurred in 5.9% of patients. The overall positive circumferential margin rate was 1.3%. Surgical complication rate and mortality were 16.2% and 0.8% within 30 days of surgery, respectively. Mean hospital stay after surgery and hospital cost were 6.3 ± 2.9 days and 10442.5 ± 3321.5 US dollars, respectively. Risk factors for surgical complications included male gender, tumor location (mid-low rectum), combined organ resection, and clinical T category (cT3–4). Urinary function and general sexual satisfaction decreased significantly 1 month after surgery for both sexes. Subsequently, both parameters increased progressively, and the values 1 year after surgery were comparable to those measured before surgery. At a median follow-up of 34.6 months, local recurrence and distant metastases occurred in 2.3% and 21.1% of patients, respectively.

Conclusions

Robotic rectal resection was safe with preserved urogenital function and arrived equivalent oncological outcomes in a nonselected group of patients with rectal cancer.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

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.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol.

METHODS

A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Three Surgery Procedures Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

Aim: Our aim was to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis of short-term and long-term outcomes of open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and robotic surgery (RS) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for rectal cancer. Methods: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs published up to October 2018 from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We selected studies referencing the comparison between at least two of OS, LS, and RS. Short-term and long-term outcomes of different surgery procedures were evaluated. Mean differences or odds ratios and their 95% credible interval were pooled with Bayesian modeling. Results: In the network meta-analysis, 15 studies were identified through database searching and other sources that included three RCTs and nine non-RCTs enrolling 2360 patients. As for long-term outcomes, we did not find any significant difference among these surgery procedures after nCRT for rectal cancer in this network meta-analysis. As for short-term outcomes, no significant outcomes were obtained except for operative time, blood loss, length of incision, and time to pass first flatus. Our meta-analysis illustrated that RS had the longest operative time. However, LS had a significantly shorter operative time than RS, shorter incision than OS, shorter time to pass first flatus than OS, and less blood loss than OS. Conclusions: RS was regarded as the inferior surgery procedure after nCRT for rectal cancer. Meanwhile, LS might possibly be the most safe and feasible surgery procedure after nCRT for rectal cancer.

Systematic review analysis of robotic and transanal approaches in TME surgery- A systematic review of the current literature in regard to challenges in rectal cancer surgery

Several patients' and pathological characteristics in rectal surgery can significantly complicate surgical loco regional tumor clearance. The main factors are obesity, short tumor distance from anal verge, bulky tumors, and narrow pelvis, which have been shown to be associated to poor surgical results in open and laparoscopic approaches. Minimally invasive surgery has the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity with equivalent short- and long-term oncological outcomes compared to conventional open approach. Achilles' heel of laparoscopic approaches is conversion to open surgery. High risk for conversion is evident for patients with bulky and low tumors as well as male gender and narrow pelvis. Hence, patient's characteristics represent challenges in rectal cancer surgery especially in minimally invasive approaches. The available surgical techniques increased remarkably with recently developed and implemented improvements of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. The controversial discussions about sense and purpose of these novel approaches are still ongoing in the literature. Herein, we evaluate, if latest technical advances like transanal approach or robotic assisted surgery have the potential to overcome known challenges and pitfalls in rectal cancer surgery in demanding surgical cases and highlight the role of current minimally invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery.

Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic Right Colectomy

Few series have reported on the impact of robotic right colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy. Even fewer have reported on the outcomes of intracorporeal anastomoses. The aim of our study was to determine the impact of robotic surgery on short-term operative outcomes in patients undergoing right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. One hundred and fourteen consecutive patients who underwent a right colectomy by two colorectal surgeons between 2012 and 2017 were included. Patients were separated into two groups: laparoscopic technique with extracorporeal anastomosis (n = 87) and robotic technique with intracorporeal anastomosis (n = 27). Univariate analysis was performed to determine differences in outcomes. Differences between cohorts were only identified with regard to gender (62 vs 37%, P = 0.022) and year of surgery. In comparison with laparoscopy, robotic colectomy resulted in a shorter time of GI recovery (1.3 ± 0.6 vs 3 ± 1.1, P < 0.0001), lower rates of postoperative ileus (4 vs 28%, P = 0.007), lower overall morbidity (26 vs 52%, P = 0.019), less blood loss ( P = 0.001), 50 per cent lower narcotic use, and longer operative time (255 ± 66 vs 139 ± 49, P < 0.001). Despite longer operative time, robotic surgery improved GI recovery, significantly lowered oral morphine equivalent usage, and decreased short-term complications.

Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current state and future perspective

Interest in minimally invasive surgery has increased in recent decades. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) was introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. RALS has the potential to provide better clinical outcomes in rectal cancer surgery, allowing for precise dissection in the narrow pelvic space. In addition, RALS represents an important advancement in surgical education with respect to use of the dual-console robotic surgery system. Because the public health insurance systems in Japan have covered the cost of RALS for rectal cancer since April 2018, RALS has been attracting increasingly more attention. Although no overall robust evidence has yet shown that RALS is superior to laparoscopic or open surgery, the current evidence supports the notion that technically demanding subgroups (patients with obesity, male patients, and patients treated by extended procedures) may benefit from RALS. Technological innovation is a constantly evolving field. Several companies have been developing new robotic systems that incorporate new technology. This competition among companies in the development of such systems is anticipated to lead to further improvements in patient outcomes as well as drive down the cost of RALS, which is one main concern of this new technique.

Long-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology has been proven to be a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy with regards to the peri- and postoperative clinical outcomes. Oncological outcomes have been scarcely examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the disease-free survival in relation to the two surgical approaches: robot-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopy. In addition, all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were investigated.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2015, patients, undergoing either laparoscopic or robot-assisted elective, curative-intended surgery for colorectal cancer were included.

RESULTS

A total of 9184 patients underwent surgery in the study period: 5978 patients for colon cancer and 3206 patients for rectal cancer. Among patients with colon cancer, 331 patients (5.5%) underwent robot-assisted surgery, and 449 patients (14.0%) underwent robot-assisted surgery in the rectal cancer group. In the adjusted analyses, the hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival, for patients with colon cancer was 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.18]. For patients with rectal cancer, the adjusted HR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.06). No difference in all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated comparable rates of disease-free survival, all-cause mortality, and recurrence-free survival when comparing robot-assisted surgery with conventional laparoscopy in patients with colorectal cancer.