Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for locally advanced low rectal cancer

Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

This study attempted to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RS), and open surgery (OS) for lateral lymph-node dissection (LLND) in treatment of rectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect cohort studies on outcomes of LS, RS, and OS for LLND for rectal cancer. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the quality of cohort studies. Primary outcomes should at least include one of the following clinical outcome measures: operative time, blood loss, total lymph-node harvest, positive resection margin rate, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. A network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software. Fourteen cohort studies including 8612 patients were eligible for inclusion. The network meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of intraoperative outcomes, the RS group had the longest operative time, while the OS group had the shortest; the LS and RS groups had significantly less blood loss than the OS group. In terms of histological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes harvested and the positive margin rate among the LS, RS, and OS groups (P > 0.05). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the OS group had the highest probability of postoperative complications and the longest hospital stay, followed by the LS group, with the RS group being the lowest. RS was the best method in blood loss, postoperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital stay, followed by LS. OS had the shortest operative time and the highest blood loss.

Efficacy of lateral lymph node dissection for local control of rectal cancer: A multicenter study

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for rectal cancer by comparing the local control in patients with and without pathological lateral lymph node metastasis (LLNM).

Methods

We included 189 patients with rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision and LLND at 13 institutions between 2017 and 2019. Patients with and without pathological LLNM were defined as the pLLNM (+) and (-) groups, respectively. Propensity score-matching helped to balance the basic characteristics of both groups. The incidences of local recurrence (LR) and lateral lymph node recurrence (LLNR) were compared between the groups.

Results

In the entire cohort, 39 of the 189 patients had pathological LLNM. The 3-year LR and LLNR rates were 18.3% and 4.0% (p = 0.01) and 7.7% and 3.3% (p = 0.22) in the pLLNM (+) and (-) groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, the data from 62 patients were analyzed. No significant differences in LR or LLNR were observed between both groups. The 3-year LR and LLNR rates were 16.4% and 9.8% (p = 0.46) and 9.7% and 9.8% (p = 0.99) in the pLLNM (+) and (-) groups, respectively.

Conclusion

LLND would lead to comparable local control in the pLLNM (+) and (-) groups if the clinicopathological characteristics except for LLNM are similar.

Management of internal iliac and obturator lymph nodes in mid-low rectal cancer

In rectal cancer treatment, the diagnosis and management of lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LLN) are critical for preventing local recurrence. Over time, scholars have reached a consensus: when imaging suggests LLN metastasis, combining neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with selective LLN dissection (LLND) can mitigate the risk of recurrence. Selective LLND typically encompasses lymph nodes in the internal iliac and obturator regions. Recent studies emphasize distinctions between internal iliac and obturator lymph nodes regarding prognosis and treatment outcomes, prompting the need for differentiated diagnostic and treatment approaches.

Recurrence of rectal cancer on the pelvic sidewall after lateral lymph node dissection

PURPOSE

Although lateral lymph node dissection has been performed to prevent lateral pelvic recurrence in locally advanced lower rectal cancer, the incidence of lateral pelvic recurrence after this procedure has not been investigated. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent lateral pelvic lymph node dissection, with a particular focus on recurrence patterns.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at a single high-volume cancer center in Japan. A total of 493 consecutive patients with stage II-III rectal cancer who underwent lateral lymph node dissection between January 2005 and August 2022 were included. The primary outcome measures included patterns of recurrence, overall survival, and relapse-free survival. Patterns of recurrence were categorized as lateral or central pelvic.

RESULTS

Among patients who underwent lateral lymph node dissection, 18.1% had pathologically positive lateral lymph node metastasis. Lateral pelvic recurrence occurred in 5.5% of patients after surgery. Multivariate analysis identified age > 75 years, lateral lymph node metastasis, and adjuvant chemotherapy as independent risk factors for lateral pelvic recurrence. Evaluation of the recurrence rate by dissection area revealed approximately 1% of recurrences in each area after dissection.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated the prognostic outcome and limitations of lateral lymph node dissection for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer, focusing on the incidence of recurrence in the lateral area after the dissection. Our study emphasizes the clinical importance of lateral lymph node dissection, which is an essential technique that surgeons should acquire.

Short-term and long-term outcomes after robotic radical surgery for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for ensuring both complete resection and preservation of anal function in rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to clarify short-term and long-term outcomes after robotic radical surgery for rectal GIST.

METHODS

A total of 13 patients who underwent robotic radical surgery for rectal GIST between December 2011 and April 2022 were included. All robotic procedures were performed using a systematic approach. A supplemental video of robotic radical surgery for rectal GIST is attached. The short-term outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications during the first 30 days after surgery. Surgical outcomes were retrieved from a prospective database. Long-term outcomes, including overall survival and recurrence-free survival, were determined in all patients.

RESULTS

Median distance from the tumor to the anal verge was 4.0 cm. Surgical margins were negative in all patients. Two patients underwent neoadjuvant imatinib therapy. All patients underwent sphincter-preserving surgery. None underwent conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery. The incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and grade ≥ III complications was 7.7% and 0%, respectively. The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 days. Twelve patients (92.3%) underwent stoma closure within 5 months of the initial surgery. Median follow-up time was 76 months. The 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates were both 100%. None of the patients had recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Short-term and long-term outcomes after radical robotic surgery for rectal GIST were favorable. Robotic surgery might be a useful surgical approach for rectal GIST.

Comparison of the short-term surgical outcomes of lateral lymph node dissection for low rectal cancer using a robotic-assisted transabdominal approach alone or supported by a transanal approach

BACKGROUND

Lateral lymph node metastases are a major cause of local recurrence after surgery for advanced low rectal cancer. Lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) may reduce the risk of local recurrence in patients with suspected lateral lymph node metastasis. Recent reports have shown that robotic-assisted LLND can help to reduce the postoperative complication rate, such as urinary disturbance. Furthermore, with the advent of transanal total mesorectal excision, a novel LLND procedure that combines a transabdominal approach with a transanal approach has been reported. This study aimed to clarify the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted LLND supported by a transanal approach for advanced low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients diagnosed to have low rectal cancer between June 2019 and May 2023 were retrospectively enrolled and divided according to whether they underwent LLND via a robotic-assisted transabdominal approach alone (transabdominal group, n = 19) or in combination with a transanal approach (2team group, n = 20). The patient characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The total operation time was significantly shorter in the 2team group than in the transabdominal group (366 min vs. 513 min, P < 0.001), as was the time taken to perform unilateral LLND (64 min vs. 114 min, P < 0.001). Furthermore, there was significantly less intraoperative bleeding in the 2team group (30 mL vs. 80 mL, P = 0.004). There was no significant between-group difference in postoperative complications. The incidence of postoperative urinary disturbance was satisfactory at 5% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The operation time for LLND performed by a robotic-assisted transabdominal approach was shortened when supported by a transanal approach. The frequency of postoperative urinary disturbance was low in both groups. Therefore, robotic-assisted abdominal LLND supported by a transanal approach can be considered a promising treatment option for advanced low rectal cancer.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy for locally advanced colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP), and minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy (COP) for locally advanced colon cancer has not been studied.

METHODS

We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on minimally invasive (robotic and laparoscopic) and COP. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023407029).

RESULTS

There are 10132 participants including 21 articles. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had less operation time (SMD 0.48; CI 0.32 to 0.65; I2 = 0%, P = .000), estimated blood loss (MD -1.23; CI -1.90 to -0.56; I2 = 95%, P < .0001), the median time to semi-liquid diet (SMD -0.43; CI -0.70 to -0.15; I2 = 0%, P = .002), time to the first flatus (SMD -0.97; CI -1.30 to -0.63; I2 = 7%, P < .0001), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR 0.33; CI 0.24 to 0.46; I2 = 0%, P < .0001) in perioperative outcomes. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had fewer overall complications (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2 = 22.4%, P = .023), postoperative complications (RR 0.79; CI 0.69 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .001), and urinary retention (RR 0.63; CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .011) in perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the difference between the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive and open treatment of locally advanced colon cancer through meta-analysis. Minimally invasive proctectomy is better than COP in postoperative and perioperative outcomes. However, there is no difference in oncological outcomes. This also provides an evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, multi-center RCT research is also needed to draw more scientific and rigorous conclusions in the future.

Comparison of laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer with and without routine resection of the visceral branches of internal iliac artery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore the safety and feasibility of the modified lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) with routine resection of the visceral branches of internal iliac vessels (IIVs) for mid-low-lying rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Consecutive patients undergoing LLND for rectal cancer were divided into the routine visceral branches of the IIVs resection group (RVR group) and the NRVR group (without routine resection). The main outcomes were postoperative complications and the number of lateral lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2021, a total of 75 and 57 patients were included in the RVR and NRVR group, respectively. The operative time was reduced in the RVR group (p = 0.020). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for the incidence of total, major, or minor postoperative complications. Pathologically confirmed LLNM were 24 (32%) patients in the RVR group and 12 (21.1%) in the NRVR group (p = 0.162). The number of lateral lymph nodes harvested had no significant difference between two groups (11 vs. 12, p = 0.329).

CONCLUSION

LLND with routine resection of visceral branches of IIVs is safe and feasible, which brings no major complication or long-term urinary disorder.

Current perspectives on the management of lateral pelvic lymph nodes in rectal cancer

Significant controversies exist with regards to the optimal management of lateral pelvic lymph nodes metastases (mLLN) in patients with low rectal cancer. The differing views held by Japanese and Western clinicians on the management of mLLN have been well documented. However, the adequacy of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) or neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACRT) alone in addition to total mesorectal excision (TME) have recently come into question, due to the relatively high incidence of lateral local recurrences following PLND and TME, or NACRT and TME alone. Recently, a more selective approach to PLND has been suggested, involving a combination of neoadjuvant therapy, followed by PLND only to patients in whom the oncological benefit is likely to outweigh the risk of potential adverse events. A number of studies have attempted to retrospectively identify certain nodal characteristics on preoperative imaging, such as nodal size, appearance, and size reduction following neoadjuvant therapy. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal criteria for a selective approach to PLND, partly due to the heterogeneity and retrospective nature of most of these studies. This review aims to provide an overview of recent evidence with regards to the diagnostic challenges, considerations for, and outcomes of the current management strategies for mLLN in rectal cancer patients.

The impact of mesorectal fat area on recurrence following total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The mesorectal fat area (MFA) at the tip of the ischial spines on magnetic resonance imaging has been used to characterize mesorectal morphology. Recent studies reported that a larger MFA correlated with difficulties in rectal cancer surgery. However, the relationship between MFA and rectal cancer prognosis remains unclear. This study evaluated the impact of MFA on recurrence following robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic TME for lower rectal cancer from December 2011 to December 2016 were enrolled. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine variables associated with relapse-free survival (RFS). Patients were divided into groups based on MFA, and RFS was compared.

RESULTS

Of 230 patients, 173 (75.3%) were male. The median age was 63 years, and median MFA was 19.7 cm2. In multivariate analysis, smaller MFA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.97; p < 0.01), p/yp stage II (HR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.40-10.35; p < 0.01), and p/yp stage III (HR, 5.35; 95% CI, 1.88-15.27; p < 0.01) were independently associated with worse RFS. Sex, body mass index, and visceral fat area were not correlated with RFS. In the median follow-up period of 60.8 months, patients with MFA < 19.7 cm2 had a significantly lower 5-year RFS rate (72.7%) than those with MFA ≥ 19.7 cm2 (85.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Smaller MFA was associated with worse RFS in patients undergoing robotic TME for lower rectal cancer. MFA is considered to be a prognostic factor in rectal cancer.

Two-team lateral lymph node dissection assisted by the transanal approach for locally advanced lower rectal cancer: comparison with the conventional transabdominal approach

BACKGROUND

An optimal surgical approach to lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) remains controversial. With the recent popularity of transanal total mesorectal excision, a two-team procedure combining the transabdominal and transanal approaches was established as a novel approach to LLND. This study aimed to clarify the safety and feasibility of two-team LLND (2team-LLND) and compare its short-term outcomes with those of conventional transabdominal LLND (Conv-LLND).

METHODS

Between April 2013 and March 2020, 463 patients diagnosed with primary locally advanced rectal cancer underwent a transanal total mesorectal excision; among them, 93 patients who underwent bilateral prophylactic LLND were included in this single-center, retrospective study. Among these patients, 50 and 43 patients underwent Conv-LLND (the Conv-LLND group) and 2team-LLND (the 2team-LLND group), respectively. The short-term outcomes, including the operation time, blood loss volume, number of complications, and number of harvested lymph nodes, were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The intraoperative and postoperative complications in the 2team-LLND group were equivalent to those in the Conv-LLND group; furthermore, the incidence of postoperative urinary retention in the 2team-LLND group was acceptably low (9%). Compared with the Conv-LLND group, the 2team-LLND group had a significantly shorter operation time (P = 0.003), lower median blood loss (P = 0.02), and higher number of harvested lateral lymph nodes (P = 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

The intraoperative and postoperative complications of 2team-LLND were comparable with those of Conv-LLND. Thus, 2team-LLND was safe and feasible for advanced lower rectal cancer. Moreover, it was superior to Conv-LLND in terms of the operation time, blood loss volume, and number of harvested lateral lymph nodes. Therefore, it can be a promising LLND approach.

Laparoscopic Extraperitoneal Approach for Lateral Pelvic Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer: Techniques and Short-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection has been performed selectively in rectal cancer cases; however, it involves highly skilled techniques because of the complex adjacent anatomical structures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Laparoscopic EP-LPND was performed in Korea University Anam Hospital from June 2018, and short-term surgical outcomes were analyzed from June to December 2018. Among the patients with histologically diagnosed rectal adenocarcinoma, patients who were suspected Lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis at magnetic resonance imaging were selected for this procedure.

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal approach for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in the study period. The mean number of retrieved lymph node was 4.57, and metastatic lymph nodes were identified in 3 patients (42.8%). All of the lymph nodes with suspected metastasis preoperatively were removed in postoperative images. There was no immediate postoperative complication beyond the moderate grade associated with lateral pelvic lymph node dissection. The median follow-up was 9 months, and there were no local recurrence nor complications related to sexual and voiding functions.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic extraperitoneal approach might be an efficient way to perform lateral pelvic lymph node dissection using the same principles as the conventional method without violation of the peritoneum.

Robotic pelvic side-wall lymph node dissection for rectal cancer: a systematic review of videos and application of the IDEAL 2A framework

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) in rectal cancer has gained increasing traction worldwide. Robotic LPLND is an emerging technique. Utilising the IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment and long-term follow-up) framework for surgical innovation, robotic LPLND is currently at the IDEAL 2A stage (development) mainly limited to case reports, case series and videos. A systematic literature review was performed for videographic robotic LPLND. Pubmed, Ovid and Web of Science were searched with a predefined search strategy. The LapVEGAS score for peer review of video surgery was adapted for the robotic approach (RoVEGAS) and applied to measure video quality. Two reviewers independently reviewed videos and consensus reached on technical steps and learning points. Data are presented as a narrative synthesis of results. The IDEAL 2A framework was applied to videos to assess their content at the present stage of innovation. A total of 83 abstracts were identified. In accordance with the PRISMA statement, nine videos were analysed. Adherence to the complete IDEAL 2a framework was low. All videos demonstrated LPLND; however, reporting of clinical outcomes was heterogeneous and completed in six of nine videos. Histopathology was reported in six videos, with other outcomes variably reported. No videos presented patient-reported outcome measures. Two videos reported presence or absence of recurrence on follow-up. Video articles provide a valuable educational resource in dissemination and adoption of robotic techniques. Standardisation of reporting objectives are needed. Complete reporting of pathology and oncologic outcomes is required in videographic procedural-based publications to meet the IDEAL 2A framework criteria.

Essential updates 2020/2021: Advancing precision medicine for comprehensive rectal cancer treatment

In the paradigm shift related to rectal cancer treatment, we have to understand a variety of new emerging topics to provide appropriate treatment for individual patients as precision medicine. However, information on surgery, genomic medicine, and pharmacotherapy is highly specialized and subdivided, creating a barrier to achieving thorough knowledge. In this review, we summarize the perspective for rectal cancer treatment and management from the current standard-of-care to the latest findings to help optimize treatment strategy.

Updated systematic review of the approach to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence regarding surgical advances in the management of primary locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

The management of rectal cancer has evolved significantly in recent decades, with improved (neo)adjuvant treatment strategies and enhanced perioperative protocols. Centralization of care for complex, advanced cases has enabled surgeons in these units to undertake more ambitious surgical procedures.

METHODS

A Pubmed, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane database search was conducted according to the predetermined search strategy. The review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245582).

RESULTS

14 studies were identified which reported on the outcomes of 3,188 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary rectal cancer. 50% of patients had neoadjuvant radiotherapy. 24.2% underwent flap reconstruction, 9.4% required a bony resection and 34 patients underwent a major vascular excision. 73.9% achieved R0 resection, with 33.1% experiencing a major complication. Median length of hospital stay ranged from 13 to 19 days. 1.6% of patients died within 30 days of their operation. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates ranged 29%-78%.

LIMITATIONS

The studies included in our review were mostly single-centre observational studies published prior to the introduction of modern neoadjuvant treatment regimens. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on the basis that most were non-randomized, non-comparative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic exenteration offers patients with locally advanced rectal cancer the chance of long-term survival with acceptable levels of morbidity. Increased experience facilitates more radical procedures, with the introduction of new platforms and/or reconstructive options.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Improvement in Surgical Outcomes Using 3-Dimensional Printed Models for Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for rectal cancer is challenging due to the complexity of the pelvic wall anatomy, and incomplete lateral pelvic lymph node dissection may result in local recurrence in the lateral pelvis. Although 3-dimensional printed organ models are useful for understanding spatial anatomy, it is currently unclear whether they improve surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess whether the surgical effectiveness of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection is increased by the use of individualized 3-dimensional printed pelvic models.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study using a propensity matching analysis.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a university hospital in Japan.

PATIENTS

In total, 115 patients comprising 184 pelvic sides (right, 85 sides; left, 99 sides) who underwent lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for colorectal adenocarcinoma between January 2012 and December 2019 were enrolled.

INTERVENTIONS

We compared surgical outcomes using 3-dimensional printed pelvic models with control outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes on 1 pelvic side after the propensity matching analysis.

RESULTS

After matching, 35 pelvic sides each were allocated to the 3-dimensional model and control groups, and no significant differences were observed in patient characteristics between the 2 groups. The number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes was significantly higher in the 3-dimensional model group (median, 9; range, 3-16) than in the control group (median, 6; range, 0-22; p = 0.047).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study using propensity score matching. However, historical backgrounds were not matched, and the majority of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection procedures in the 3-dimensional model group were recently performed. This limitation may have influenced surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that, by referring to individualized 3-dimensional printed pelvic models, colorectal surgeons harvested a larger number of lateral pelvic lymph nodes during lateral pelvic lymph node dissection. This result suggests that 3-dimensional printed models help surgeons to complete more detailed procedures. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B776.

MEJORA DE LOS RESULTADOS QUIRRGICOS MEDIANTE EL USO DE MODELOS IMPRESOS EN D PARA LA DISECCIN LATERAL DE LOS GANGLIOS LINFTICOS PLVICOS EN EL CNCER DE RECTO

ANTECEDENTES:La disección lateral de los ganglios linfáticos de la pelvis en el cáncer de recto es un desafío debido a la complejidad de la anatomía de la pared pélvica; la disección incompleta de las mismas puede resultar en una recidiva local en dicha zona. Aunque la impresión tridimensional de modelos de órganos es útil para comprender la estructura anatómica espacial, actualmente no está claro si mejoran los resultados quirúrgicos.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar si la efectividad quirúrgica de la disección de los ganglios linfáticos laterales de la pelvis aumenta mediante el uso individualizado de modelos pélvicos impresos en 3D.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo que utilizó un análisis de coincidencia de propensión.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en un hospital universitario de Japón.PACIENTES:En total, se enrolaron 115 pacientes que comprendían 184 lados pélvicos (85 de lado derecho; 99 de lado izquierdo) que fueron sometidas a disección lateral de ganglios linfáticos de la pelvis por adenocarcinoma colorrectal entre enero de 2012 y diciembre de 2019.INTERVENCIONES:Comparamos los resultados quirúrgicos mediante modelos pélvicos tridimensionales impresos con los resultados de control.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue el número de ganglios linfáticos laterales pélvicos extraídos en un lado pélvico después del análisis de coincidencia de propensión.RESULTADOS:Después del emparejamiento, se asignaron 35 lados pélvicos cada uno, tanto al modelo tridimensional como al grupo de control; no se observaron diferencias significativas con respecto a las características de los pacientes entre los dos grupos. El número de ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales extraídos fue significativamente mayor en el grupo del modelo tridimensional (mediana, 9; rango 3-16) que en el grupo de control (mediana, 6; rango, 0-22) (p = 0.047).LIMITACIONES:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo que utilizó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión. Sin embargo, antecedentes históricos no fueron encontrados y la mayoría de los procedimientos de disección de los ganglios linfáticos laterales pélvicos en el grupo del modelo tridimensional se realizaron recientemente. Esta limitación pudo haber influido en los resultados quirúrgicos.CONCLUSIONES:El presente estudio demostró que al referirse a modelos pélvicos individualizados impresos en 3D, los cirujanos colorrectales recolectaron un mayor número de ganglios linfáticos laterales de la pelvis durante la disección lateral. Este resultado sugiere que los modelos tridimensionales impresos ayudan a los cirujanos a completar procedimientos más detallados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B776.

Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer

Aim

Sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer include low anterior and intersphincteric resection. In low anterior resection, the distal rectum is divided by a transabdominal approach, which is technically demanding. In intersphincteric resection, a perineal approach is used. We aimed to evaluate whether robotic‐assisted surgery is technically superior to laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer. We compared the frequency of low anterior resection in cases of sphincter‐preserving operations.

Method

We investigated 183 patients who underwent sphincter‐preserving robotic‐assisted or laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer (lower border within 5 cm of the anal verge) between April 2010 and March 2020. The frequency of low anterior resection was compared between laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted surgeries. The clinicopathological factors associated with an increase in performing low anterior resection were analyzed by multivariate analyses.

Results

Overall, 41 (22.4%) and 142 (77.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted surgery, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. Low anterior resection was done significantly more frequently in robotic‐assisted surgery (67.6%) than in laparoscopic surgery (48.8%) (P = 0.04). Multivariate analyses showed that tumor distance from the anal verge (P < 0.01) and robotic‐assisted surgery (P = 0.02) were significantly associated with an increase in the performance of low anterior resection. The rate of postoperative complications or pathological results was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic‐assisted surgery significantly increased the frequency of low anterior resection in sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer. Robotic‐assisted surgery has technical superiority over laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer treatment.

How to do a robotic lateral pelvic side wall dissection for rectal cancer

Our article describes the anatomy, technical steps, common pitfalls, and our recommendations for performing a successful robotic lateral pelvic side wall dissection for rectal cancer. This is supplemented with videos and an image to clearly demonstrate our technique.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for borderline resectable low rectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes at a single Japanese center

PURPOSE

Rectal cancers pose a threat to the mesorectal fascia or invade neighboring structures or organs. Some tumors are potentially resectable but are likely to be positive at the resection margin for cancer involvement and are thus recognized as "borderline resectable (BR)" tumors. This study aimed to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for BR low rectal cancer at a single Japanese center.

METHODS

Data of 55 patients, who received nCRT followed by BR low rectal cancer surgery between April 2010 and December 2019, were evaluated for the short-term outcomes. The oncological outcomes of 42 patients who underwent surgery between April 2010 and December 2018 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-six (65.5%) patients had cT4 tumors, and 53 (96.4%) patients had a clinical-stage III or IV. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 42 (76.4%) patients. The incidence of severe post-operative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) was 18.2%. Fifty-two (94.5%) patients had a pathological negative resection margin. The 3-year overall survival rate, disease-free survival rate, and cumulative incidence of local recurrence were 100%, 70.3%, and 5.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The short- and long-term outcomes of nCRT for BR low rectal cancer were acceptable. In particular, reasonable local control was achieved.

Extended Lymphadenectomy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancers: A Systematic Review

Purpose

The surgical treatment of advanced low rectal cancer remains controversial. Extended lymphadenectomy (EL) is the preferred option in the East, especially in Japan, while neoadjuvant radiotherapy is the treatment of choice in the West. This review was undertaken to review available evidence supporting each of the therapies.

Methods

All studies looking at EL were included in this review. A comprehensive search was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcome was defined as 5-year overall survival, with secondary outcomes including 3-year overall survival, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival, length of operation, and number of complications.

Results

Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant publication bias. There was statistically significant difference in 5-year survival for patient who underwent EL (odds ratio, 1.34; 95 confidence interval, 0.09–0.5; P=0.006). There were no differences noted in secondary outcomes except for length of the operations.

Conclusion

There is evidence supporting EL in rectal cancer; however, it is difficult to interpret and not easily transferable to a Western population. Further research is necessary on this important topic.

Lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer: State of the art review

Half of the local regional recurrences from rectal cancer are nowadays located in the lateral compartments, most likely due to lateral lymph node (LLN) metastases. There is evidence that a lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) can lower the lateral local recurrence rate. An LLND without neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy in patients with or without suspected LLN metastases has been the standard of care in the East, while Western surgeons believed LLN metastases to be cured by neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision (TME) only. An LLND in patients without enlarged LLNs might result in overtreatment with low rates of pathological LLNs, but in patients with enlarged LLNs who are treated with (C)RT and TME only, the risk of a lateral local recurrence significantly increases to 20%. Certain Eastern and Western centers are increasingly performing a selective LLND after neoadjuvant treatment in the presence of suspicious LLNs due to new scientific insights, but (inter)national consensus on the indication and surgical approach of LLND is lacking. An LLND is an anatomically challenging procedure with intraoperative risks such as bleeding and postoperative morbidity. It is therefore essential to carefully select the patients who will benefit from this procedure and where possible to perform the LLND in a minimally invasive manner to limit these risks. This review gives an overview of the current evidence of the assessment of LLNs, the indications for LLND, the surgical technique, pitfalls in performing this procedure and the future studies are discussed, aiming to contribute to more (inter)national consensus.

Lateral lymph node dissection in advanced low rectal cancer treatment

Lateral lymph node (LLN) metastasis is a determinant of local recurrence in advanced low rectal cancer. Lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) is effective in removing metastatic lymph nodes, and has been shown to have a decreased local recurrence rate. However, because of its complexity and complications it induces, there is still tremendous controversy about its usage. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME) are recommended as a conventional treatment for advanced rectal cancer. However, LLN metastasis and local recurrence still occur despite nCRT with TME. In Japan, TME with LLND is the standard surgical treatment for Stage II/III of advanced low rectal cancer. Before surgery, a proper evaluation of LLN status should be performed. Laparoscopic LLND and robotic-assisted LLND are useful for this. More research is necessary to improve the oncological outcomes of LLND. In this review, we retrospectively examine previous reports about LLND, aiming to emphasize its application prospects to improve patient survival and life quality.

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.

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumor

Background. The optimal radical surgical approach for rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) is unknown. Methods. This study evaluated the short- and long-term outcomes of 27 patients who underwent robotic radical surgery for rectal NET between 2011 and 2019. Results. The median distance from the lower border of the tumor to the anal verge was 5.0 cm. The median tumor size was 9.5 mm. Six patients (22%) had lymph node metastasis. The incidences of postoperative complications of grade II and grade III or more according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were 11% and 0%, respectively. All patients underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, and no patients required conversion to open surgery. The median follow-up time was 48.9 months, and both the 3-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates were 100%. Conclusions. Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal NET tumor were favorable. Robotic surgery may be a useful surgical approach for rectal NET.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Long-term clinical outcomes of total mesorectal excision and selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced low rectal cancer: a comparative study of a robotic versus laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes of minimally invasive lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) are not completely known. The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic LPND in low rectal cancer patients with suspected lymph node metastasis in the pelvic sidewall.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of all rectal cancer patients who had laparoscopic or robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) with LPND between March 2006 and June 2016. Stage IV patients were excluded. The outcomes of patients who had laparoscopic and robotic TME with LPND were compared.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients had laparoscopic LPND and 70 had robotic LPND. No significant differences in patient characteristics were observed between the two groups. The urinary retention rate was lower in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (7.1% vs. 24.1%; p = 0.043). During a median follow-up of 44.3 months, the overall recurrence rates were 48.3% and 31.4% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.175). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 50.4% and 67.0% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.227). The 5-year overall survival rates were 65.0% and 92.2% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic TME with LPND is safe and feasible. In particular, it is associated with lower urinary retention. Robotic TME with LPND might yield a similar local recurrence rate and 5-year disease-free survival, but favorable long-term overall survival as compared to the laparoscopic approach. However, considering the retrospective nature and both major variables of TME and LPND involved together, this should be cautiously interpreted.

Lateral lymph node dissection for mid-to-low rectal cancer: is it safe and effective in a practice-based cohort?

BACKGROUND

Most evidence regarding lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer is from expert settings. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this procedure in a practice-based cohort.

METHODS

A total of 383 patients who were diagnosed with stage II-III mid-to-low rectal cancer between 2010 and 2019 and underwent primary resection with curative intent at a general surgery unit were retrospectively reviewed. After propensity matching, 144 patients were divided into the following groups for short- and long-term outcome evaluation: mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection (n = 72) and mesorectal excision (n = 72).

RESULTS

This practice-based cohort was characterized by a high pT4 (41.6%) and R1 resection (10.4%) rate. Although the operative time was longer in the lateral dissection group (349 min vs. 237 min, p < 0.001), postoperative complications (19.4% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.829), and hospital stay (18 days vs. 22 days, p = 0.059) did not significantly differ; 5-year relapse-free survival (62.5% vs. 66.4%, p = 0.378), and cumulative local recurrence (9.7% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.451) were also in the same range in both groups. In the seven locally recurrent cases in the lateral dissection group, four had undergone R1 resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral lymph node dissection was found to be safe in this practice-based cohort; however, the local control effect was not obvious. To maximize the potential merits of lateral lymph node dissection, strategies need to be urgently established to avoid R1 resection in clinical practice.

Robotic surgery for clinical T4 rectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical approach for clinical T4 (cT4) rectal cancer is unknown. This study was conducted to clarify short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for cT4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

In our retrospective cohort study, we enrolled patients who underwent robotic surgery for cT4 rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge between 2011 and 2018. The short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of a total of 122 eligible patients, 70 (57%) had cT4a tumors and 52 (43%) had cT4b tumors. Thirty-five patients (29%) had distant metastasis and 21 (17%) underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Thirty-four patients (28%) underwent combined resection of adjacent organs and 43 (35%) underwent lateral lymph node dissection. The median operative time was 288 min and the median blood loss was 11 ml. No patients required conversion to open surgery. The incidences of postoperative complications of grades II, III, and IV or more according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were 17.2%, 3.5%, and 0%, respectively. Seventy-three patients (60%) had pathological T4 tumors, and the incidence of positive resection margins was 4.9%. The median follow-up time was 42.9 months. The 3-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and cumulative local recurrence rates were 87.5%, 70.4%, and 4.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for cT4 rectal cancer were favorable. Robotic surgery is considered to be a useful approach for cT4 rectal cancer.

Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute

Surgical techniques have evolved over the past few decades, and minimally invasive surgery has been rapidly adapted to become a preferred operative approach for treating colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain a technical challenge for surgeons to perform laparoscopically, which has prompted the development of robotic platforms. Robotic surgery has been introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. The present article provides an overview of robotic rectal surgery and describes many advances that have been made in the field over the past two decades. More specifically, the introduction of the robotic platform and its benefits, and the limitations of current robotic technology, are discussed. Although the main advantages of robotic surgery over conventional laparoscopy appear to be lower conversion rates and better surgical specimen quality, oncological and functional outcomes appear to be similar to those of other alternatives. Other potential benefits include earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision. Nevertheless, the costs and lack of haptic feedback remain the primary limitations to the widespread use of robotic technology in the field.

Narrow pelvic inlet plane area and obesity as risk factors for anastomotic leakage after intersphincteric resection

BACKGROUND

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used as the ultimate sphincter-preserving procedure in extremely low rectal cancer. The most critical complication of this technique is anastomotic leakage. The incidence rate of anastomotic leakage after ISR has been reported to range from 5.1% to 20%.

AIM

To investigate risk factors for anastomotic leakage after ISR based on clinicopathological variables and pelvimetry.

METHODS

This study was conducted at Department of Colorectal Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan, with a total of 117 patients. We enrolled 117 patients with extremely low rectal cancer who underwent laparotomic and laparoscopic ISRs at our hospital. We conducted retrospective univariate and multivariate regression analyses on 33 items to elucidate the risk factors for anastomotic leakage after ISR. Pelvic dimensions were measured using three-dimensional reconstruction of computed tomography images. The optimal cutoff value of the pelvic inlet plane area that predicts anastomotic leakage was determined using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

We observed anastomotic leakage in 10 (8.5%) of the 117 patients. In the multivariate analysis, we identified high body mass index (odds ratio 1.674; 95% confidence interval: 1.087-2.58; P = 0.019) and smaller pelvic inlet plane area (odds ratio 0.998; 95% confidence interval: 0.997-0.999; P = 0.012) as statistically significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage. According to the receiver operating characteristic curves, the optimal cutoff value of the pelvic inlet plane area was 10074 mm². Narrow pelvic inlet plane area (≤ 10074 mm²) predicted anastomotic leakage with a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 85.9%, and an accuracy of 86.3%.

CONCLUSION

Narrow pelvic inlet and obesity were independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage after ISR. Anastomotic leakage after ISR may be predicted from a narrow pelvic inlet plane area (≤ 10074 mm²).

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of locally advanced low rectal cancer: Summary of the current evidence

Lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPLN) are a major site for local recurrence following curative resection for low locally advanced rectal cancer. Ongoing advances in imaging techniques have improved predicting LPLN metastasis (LPLNM) during pre-operative staging. However, there is ongoing debate on optimal management of this subgroup of patients with variation between guidance of different societies. In Japan, LPLNM is considered as local disease and addressed by lateral pelvic node dissection (LPLND) in addition to total mesorectal excision (TME). However, in the west, LPLNM is considered as metastatic disease and those patients are offered neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by TME surgery. The potential surgical risks and morbidity associated with LPLND as well as the uncertainty of the oncological outcome have raised the concern that patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer with LPLNM could be over or under-treated. A comprehensive review of literature was performed, summarizing the current evidence on available modalities for predicting LPLNM, the role of LPLND in the management of advanced low rectal cancer and the available surgical approaches with their impact on surgical and oncological outcomes. LPLND is associated with increased operative time, blood loss and post-operative morbidity. The potential benefits for local disease control and survival still awaits high quality studies. There has been increasing number of reports of the use minimally invasive approaches in LPLND in an attempt to reduce post-operative complications. There is need for high quality evidence to define the role of LPLND in management of patients with advanced low rectal cancer.

Postoperative morbidity and mortality after mesorectal excision with laparoscopic versus conventional open lateral lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

Lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) is a challenging procedure due to its technical difficulty and higher incidence of surgical morbidity, thus the purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative morbidity and mortality between laparoscopic and conventional open LLND after mesorectal excision (ME) for advanced rectal cancer. A comprehensive search was conducted in August 2019 based on data from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang Data to identify relevant studies, and studies comparing laparoscopic with conventional open LLND were included. Seven studies with 335 cases in the laparoscopic LLND group and 841 cases in the conventional open LLND group were finally included. Compared with the conventional open LLND group, the laparoscopic LLND group enjoys a lower postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.47,95% CI [0.23, 0.97], P = 0.04), same postoperative mortality (Postoperative mortality in both groups was zero), shorter length of postoperative hospitalization (WMD = -5.30, 95% CI [-8.42, -2.18], P = 0.0009), less wound infection (OR = 0.40,95% CI [0.21, 0.77], P = 0.006), less intestinal obstruction (OR = 0.50,95% CI [0.29, 0.84], P = 0.009), and less urinary retention (OR = 0.61,95% CI [0.38, 0.97], P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage, abdominal pelvic abscess and urinary tract infection between the two groups (P > 0.05). But in the sensitivity analysis, there was a significant change of urinary tract infection (OR = 0.22, 95%CI [0.06, 0.89], P = 0.03), and the degree of between-study heterogeneity decreased greatly. In conclusion, laparoscopic LLND may be a better alternative to conventional open LLND for advanced rectal cancer with lower postoperative morbidity and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Changes in surgical therapies for rectal cancer over the past 100 years: A review

Advances in surgical and adjuvant therapies have resulted in a dramatic improvement in outcomes of rectal cancer in terms of both oncology and functional preservation. Surgery plays a central role in therapy as it is the only means of achieving a complete cure. These surgical advancements result from extensive pioneering research in the fields of anatomy and physiology. Much history lies behind the recent surgical breakthroughs of total mesorectal excision (TME) and intersphincteric resection (ISR). This article outlines the changes that have taken place in surgical therapies for rectal cancer over more than a century based on clinical trials performed to provide scientific evidence for these therapies.

Utility of a three-dimensional printed pelvic model for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection

PURPOSE

In patients with advanced lower rectal cancer, the complex pelvic anatomy renders lateral pelvic lymph node dissection to be challenging. Therefore, we evaluated the utility of printing a three-dimensional (3D) pelvic model for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection.

METHODS

We included 22 patients who underwent lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for rectal cancer between June 2017 and February 2019. Using CT scans, 3D pelvic images and models were constructed and printed, respectively. Thirty colorectal surgeons subjectively evaluated the utility of 3D pelvic models based on a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

RESULTS

The average Likert score for the question "Would a 3D model be useful for understanding pelvic anatomy?" was 4.68. Cases with clinically diagnosed metastatic lymph nodes (4.79 ± 0.44) scored higher than those without them (4.38 ± 0.77, p = 0.02). For spatial comprehension of pelvic anatomy, 3D models scored higher (4.83) than 3D images (4.36, p < 0.001). The ease of use of 3D models and images was scored 4.60 and 4.20, respectively (p = 0.015). With experience, the 3D image reconstruction time decreased from 900 to 150 min.

CONCLUSION

The 3D pelvic models may be helpful for experienced surgeons to understand the pelvic anatomy in lateral pelvic lymph node dissection.

Long-term oncological outcomes in robotic versus laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Short-term outcomes of robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer resection seem comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic mesorectal excision. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of robot mesorectal excision require further investigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from the date of database inception to March 31, 2019 for all available trials; the results of robotic and laparoscopic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer surgery were compared. Survival parameters, including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were independently extracted by two investigators. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. The presence of heterogeneity was assessed using Q test, and the extent of heterogeneity was quantified by I² index. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software, version 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies including 2593 patients (1362 treated by robotic mesorectal excision and 1231 by laparoscopic mesorectal excision) were included. Pooled analyses showed no significant difference in OS (HR = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 1.39, P = 0.75) or DFS (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.10, P = 0.85) between the robotic and laparoscopic mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Regarding long-term survival, robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is comparable to laparoscopic mesorectal excision. More prospective, multicenter randomized trials with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing robotic mesorectal excision.

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.

Laparoscopic and robotic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer

In the era of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy and total mesorectal excision, overall oncological outcomes after curative resection of rectal cancer are excellent, with local recurrence rates as low as 5–10%. However, lateral nodal disease is a major cause of local recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy and total mesorectal excision. Patients with lateral nodal disease have a local recurrence rate of up to 30%. The oncological benefits of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) in reducing local recurrence, particularly in the lateral compartment, have been demonstrated. Although LPLND is not standard in Western countries, technical improvements in minimally invasive surgery have resulted in rapid technical standardization of this complicated procedure. The feasibility and short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic LPLND have been reported widely. A minimally invasive approach has the advantages of less bleeding and providing a better surgical view of the deep pelvic anatomy than an open approach. With precise autonomic nerve preservation, postoperative genitourinary dysfunction has been reported to be minimal. We review recent evidence on the management of lateral nodal disease in rectal cancer and technical improvements of LPLND, focusing on laparoscopic and robotic LPLND.

Simultaneous robotic surgery with low anterior resection and prostatectomy/hysterectomy

Cooperation with multiple departments is essential for the treatment of patients with rectal cancer and other pelvic cancers. In our department, we experienced two cases of rectal cancer that underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) and simultaneous resection of other pelvic organs (case 1 with prostatectomy and case 2 with hysterectomy) using the da Vinci Xi system. Here, we show the precise procedures of these two robotic surgeries. Under general anesthesia and lithotomy position, five da Vinci ports were symmetrically placed along the umbilical horizontal line with a 7 cm interval, and a 5 mm AirSeal Access Port was added in the right or left upper quadrant. Patients were placed with 22-degree Trendelenburg and 8-degree tilt to the right. The operators used the center port on the umbilicus as a camera port and chose the docking arms with either two-left-one-right or one-left-two-right setting depending on their preference. This port setting was quite useful for the operators from multiple departments to change the docking arms, even if their preference may be different. Moreover, assistants could use the remaining two ports to provide a well-expanded and safer surgical field. "With a familiar view" and "with a wide view" are our two concepts to safely perform extended pelvic surgeries. We have employed this symmetrical horizontal port site position as a general setting for usual rectal surgeries.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery in Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Aim

To compare the clinical efficacies between laparoscopic and conventional open surgery in lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced rectal cancer.

Methods

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data and performed a cumulative meta-analysis. According to inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective or prospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques were included, and then a meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software to assess the difference in clinical and oncological outcomes between the two treatment approaches.

Results

Eight studies involving a total of 892 patients were finally selected, with 394 cases in the laparoscopic surgery group and 498 cases in the traditional open surgery group. Compared with the traditional open group, the laparoscopic group had a longer operative time (WMD = 81.56, 95% CI (2.09, 142.03), P = 0.008), but less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = −452.18, 95% CI (-652.23, -252.13), P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −5.30, 95% CI (-8.42, -2.18), P = 0.0009), and higher R0 resection rate (OR = 2.17, 95% CI (1.14, 4.15), P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical complications between the two groups (OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.26, 1.07), P = 0.08). Lateral lymph node harvest, lateral lymph node metastasis, local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic LLND has a similar efficacy in oncological outcomes and postoperative complications to the conventional open surgery, with the advantages of reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and higher R0 resection rate, and tumor radical cure is similar to traditional open surgery. Laparoscopic LLND is a safe and feasible surgical approach, and it may be used as a standard procedure in LLND for advanced rectal cancer.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan

PURPOSE

Scientific evidence supporting robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remains inconclusive because most previous reports were retrospective case series or case-control studies, with few reports focusing on long-term oncological outcomes with a large volume of patients. The aim of this study was to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of a large number of consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RALS in a single high-volume center.

METHODS

The records of 551 consecutive patients who underwent RALS for rectal adenocarcinoma between December 2011 and March 2017 were examined to reveal the short-term outcomes. The oncological outcomes of the 204 patients who underwent surgery between December 2011 and March 2014 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Most patients had tumors located in the lower or mid-rectum (86.0%). Only 7.6% of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed for 191 patients (34.7%). The median operative time was 257 min, median blood loss was 10 mL, and no transfusions were needed. No conversion to open surgery was necessary. Eighteen patients (3.3%) had Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Six patients (1.1%) had positive resection margins. The mean follow-up duration of the 204 patients was 43.6 ± 9.8 (months). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 100%/100%/100%/not reached, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 93.6%/75.0%/77.6%/ not reached, respectively. The rate of local recurrence was 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that RALS is technically feasible for rectal cancer and has good short- and long-term outcomes.

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.

Lateral Lymph Node Dissection With the Focus on Indications, Functional Outcomes, and Minimally Invasive Surgery

The lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) is still a subject of great debate as to the appropriate treatment for patients with mid to low advanced rectal cancer. The guidelines of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum recommend a LLND for patients with T3/4 rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection. However, in most Western countries, a routine LLND is not recommended unless a node or nodes are clinically suspicious for metastasis. Even after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT), an 8% to 12% lateral pelvic recurrence was noted. The size of the lateral lymph node and responsiveness to preoperative CRT should be the main factors for selecting appropriate patients to undergo a LLND. In addition, from the recent literature, a laparoscopic LLND is safe and oncologically feasible and might have some advantages in short-term outcomes.