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

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted comparative laparoscopic surgery in lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

A meta-analysis was conducted on the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer. There are few articles and reports on this topic, and a lack of high-quality research results in unreliable research conclusions. This study includes prospective and retrospective studies to obtain more reliable findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases were searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The search was conducted from the time of database construction to March 2024. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the NOS scoring system. Meta-analysis was performed using R language software. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Six relevant literatures that met the criteria were finally included, and 652 patients were included, including 316 (48.5%) in the robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (RLLND) and 336 (51.5%) in the laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (LLLND). Analysis of the results showed that compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less mean intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 22, 95% CI - 40.03 to - 3.97, P < 0.05), longer operative time (MD = 51.57, 95%CI 7.69 to 95.45, P < 0.05), and a shorter mean hospital stay (MD = - 1.25, 95%CI - 2.46 to - 0.05, P < 0.05), a low rate of urinary complications (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.64, P < 0.01), a low overall rate of postoperative complications (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.87, P < 0.01), and a high number of lateral lymph node dissection (MD = 1.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.23, P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative anastomotic leakage, postoperative intestinal obstruction, and total number of lymph nodes obtained (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laparoscopy, robotic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, shortens the average length of hospital stay, reduces urologic complications, decreases overall postoperative complications, and collects more lateral lymph nodes. However, the surgical time is prolonged.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lateral pelvic node dissection (LPND) poses significant technical challenges. Despite the advent of robotic surgery, determining the optimal minimally invasive approach remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes between robotic total mesorectal excision with LPND (R-LPND) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with LPND (L-LPND).

METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. Utilizing the RevMan 5.3.5 statistical package from the Cochrane Collaboration, a random-effects model was employed.

RESULTS

Six eligible studies involving 652 patients (316 and 336 in the R-LPND and L-LPND groups, respectively) were retrieved. The robotic approach demonstrated favourable outcomes compared with the laparoscopic approach, manifesting in lower morbidity rates, reduced urinary complications, shorter hospital stays, and a higher number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes. However, longer operative time was associated with the robotic approach. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding major complications, anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal infection, neurological complications, LPND time, overall recurrence, and local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the robotic approach is a safe and feasible alternative for Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) with LPND in advanced rectal cancer. Notably, it is associated with lower morbidity, particularly a reduction in urinary complications, a shorter hospital stay and increased number of harvested lateral pelvic nodes. The trade-off for these benefits is a longer operative time.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive lateral pelvic lymph node dissection of advanced lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study comparing short-term outcomes

PURPOSE

The importance of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced low rectal cancer is gradually being recognized in Europe and the USA, where some patients were affected by uncontrolled lateral pelvic lymph node (LLNs) metastasis, even after total mesorectal excision (TME) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The purpose of this study was thus to compare robotic LLND (R-LLND) with laparoscopic (L-LLND) to clarify the safety and advantages of R-LLND.

METHODS

Sixty patients were included in this single-institution retrospective study between January 2013 and July 2022. We compared the short-term outcomes of 27 patients who underwent R-LLND and 33 patients who underwent L-LLND.

RESULTS

En bloc LLND was performed in significantly more patients in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (48.1% vs. 15.2%; p = 0.006). The numbers of LLNs on the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D) harvested were significantly higher in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (2 [0-9] vs. 1 [0-6]; p = 0.023). The total operative time was significantly longer in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (587 [460-876] vs. 544 [398-859]; p = 0.003); however, the LLND time was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.718). Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study clarified the safety and technical feasibility of R-LLND with respect to L-LLND. Our findings suggest that the robotic approach offers a key advantage, allowing significantly more LLNs to be harvested from the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D). Prospective clinical trials examining the oncological superiority of R-LLND are thus necessary in the near future.

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.

Robot-assisted lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with advanced rectal cancer: a single-center experience of 65 cases

The treatment of lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) metastasis of rectal cancer has evolved because of technical difficulties from open surgery to laparoscopy and, recently, robot-assisted surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility and short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted LPLN dissection (LPND) following total mesorectal excision (TME) in advanced rectal cancer. Clinical data of 65 patients who underwent robotic-assisted TME with LPND from April 2014 to July 2022 were reviewed. Data regarding operative details, postoperative morbidity (within 90 postoperative days) for short-term outcomes and lateral recurrence as long-term outcomes were analyzed. Among the 65 patients with LPND, preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed in 49 (75.4%). The mean operative time was 306.8 (range 191-477) min, and the mean time of unilateral LPND was 38.6 (range 16-66) min. LPND was bilaterally performed in 19 (29.2%) patients. The mean number of each side of harvested LPLNs was 6.8. Lymph node metastasis was observed in 15 (23.0%) patients, and 10 (15.4%) patients had postoperative complications. Lymphocele (n = 3) and pelvic abscess (n = 3) were the most common, followed by voiding difficulty, erectile dysfunction, obturator neuropathy, and sciatic neuropathy (all n = 1). During the 25 months of median follow-up, no lateral recurrence of the LPND site was noted. Robot-assisted LPND following TME is safe and feasible and showed acceptable short- and long-term outcomes. Despite some study limitations, we may be able to apply this strategy more widely through subsequent prospective controlled studies.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study at two institutions

BACKGROUND

Lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) represents a technically challenging procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative, genitourinary functional and mid-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (LLLND) and robotic lateral lymph node dissection (RLLND) for advanced lower rectal cancer (ALRC).

METHODS

Between January 2015 and April 2021, consecutive patients who underwent RLLND and LLLND at two high-volume centres were enrolled. The perioperative outcomes, genitourinary function recovery and mid-term oncological outcomes of the patients were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 205 patients were included in the analysis, with 95 in the RLLND group and 110 in the LLLND group. The patients in the RLLND group had a longer operative time, less blood loss, and more harvested internal iliac lymph nodes than did those in the LLLND group. In postoperative complication, urinary retention was less frequent in the RLLND group than in the LLLND group. Additionally, the RLLND group had better genitourinary function recovery. Similar results were also observed from the nCRT subgroup analysis. Moreover, there was no significant difference in mid-term oncological outcomes between the two groups. Further subgroup analysis indicated that the patients who underwent nCRT + LLLND/RLLND had better local control than those who underwent only LLLND/RLLND.

CONCLUSIONS

RLLND is safe and feasible for ALRC and is associated with more harvested internal iliac lymph nodes and better genitourinary function recovery. NCRT combined with minimally invasive LLND could constitute an improved strategy for ALRC.

Short-term outcomes of near-infrared imaging using indocyanine green in laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for middle-lower rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched cohort analysis

Laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is limited by complex neurovascular bundles in the narrow pelvic sidewall and various post-operative complications. Indocyanine green (ICG) has been applied to increase the number of harvested lymph nodes and reduce the injury of irrelevant vessels in patients with rectal cancer. However, few studies on the recurrence rate of ICG fluorescence imaging-guided laparoscopic LPND were reported. This retrospective study enrolled 50 middle- low rectal cancer patients who were treated by LPND. After propensity score matching, 20 patients were matched in each of the indocyanine green (ICG) guided imaging group (ICG group) and non-ICG guided imaging group (non-ICG group). The average follow-up time was 13.5 months (12-15 months). Our results showed that the total number of harvested lymph nodes in the ICG group was significantly higher than that in the non-ICG group (P < 0.05), and intraoperative blood loss and post-operative hospital stay times in the ICG group were less than those in the non-ICG group (P < 0.05). After 12 months of follow-up, no residual lymph node and local tumor recurrence were found for patients in the ICG group. Four patients in the non-ICG group detected residual lymph nodes at the 3-month visit. Our findings highlighted the importance of ICG fluorescence-guided imaging in LPND because it has unique advantages in improving the number of lymph node dissections, surgical accuracy, and decreasing the residual lymph nodes and local tumor recurrence. In addition, ICG fluorescence guidance technology can effectively shorten the operation time, and it is simple to operate, which is worth popularizing.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

Strangulated small bowel obstruction caused by isolated obturator nerve and pelvic vessels after pelvic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic surgery: two case reports

Background

Although small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a major complication occurring after abdominal surgery, few reports have described strangulated SBO after pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL). This report describes two cases of strangulated SBO caused by a skeletonized obturator nerve and pelvic vessels after laparoscopic PL during gynecologic surgery.

Case presentation

Case 1: A 57-year-old woman with endometrial cancer underwent a laparoscopic semi-radical total hysterectomy with PL. Nine months after the operation, she visited our emergency room complaining about subacute pain spreading in the right groin, right buttock, and dorsal part of the right thigh. She had no abdominal pain. Although her symptoms were not typical, computed tomography (CT) revealed strangulated SBO in the right pelvis. Laparoscopic surgery revealed that the small bowel was ischemic. Then we converted to open surgery. We transected the right obturator nerve and umbilical artery, which constructed an internal hernia orifice in the right pelvis, followed by resection of the ischemic small bowel. Fortunately, during 6-month follow-up, she showed only slight difficulty in walking as a postoperative complication. Case 2: A 62-year-old woman with cervical cancer underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with PL. Six months after the operation, she visited our hospital emergently because of sudden onset of abdominal pain and vomiting. CT showed strangulated SBO. Urgent laparoscopic surgery exhibited the incarcerated small bowel at the right pelvis. Consequently, we converted to open surgery. The terminal ileum was detained into the space constructed by the right umbilical artery. We cut the umbilical artery and performed ileocecal resection. After the surgery, she was discharged with no complication or sequela.

Conclusion

When examining a patient after PL who complains of severe pain or symptoms, one should consider the possibility of PL-related SBO, even if the pain is apparently atypical for SBO.

Analysis of bowel function, urogenital function, and long-term follow-up outcomes associated with robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgical approaches to total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The present study comparatively analyzed short-term clinical effectiveness and long-term follow-up endpoints associated with robotic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (LAS) when used to treat low rectal cancer.

METHOD

Within such a single-center retrospective cohort analysis, low rectal cancer patients that underwent RAS (n=200) or LAS (n=486) between January 2015 and beginning of July 2018 were enrolled.

RESULTS

The mean operative durations in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 249±64 min and 203±47 min, respectively (P<0.001). Temporary ileostomy rates in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 64.5% and 51.6% (P = 0.002). In addition, major variations across such cohorts regarding catheter removal timing, time to liquid intake, time to first leaving bed, and length of hospitalization (all P<0.001). This distal resection margin distance within the RAS cohort was diminished in comparison to LAS cohort (P=0.004). For patients within the LAS cohort, the time required to recover from reduced urinary/female sexual function was > 6 months post-surgery (P<0.0001), whereas within the RAS cohort this interval was 3 months (P<0.0001). At 6 months post-surgery, male sexual function within RAS cohort was improved in comparison to LAS cohort (P<0.001). At 6 months post-surgery, Wexner scores revealed similar results (P<0.001). No major variations within overall or disease-free survival were identified across these cohorts at 3 or 5 years post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic sphincter-preserving surgery is a safe and effective surgical technique in low rectal patients in terms of postoperative oncological safety and long-term endpoints. And the RAS strategy provides certain additional benefits with respect to short-term urogenital/anorectal functional recovery in treated patients compared to LAS.