Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies

Robotic surgery is associated with a decreased risk of circumferential resection margin positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer undergoing mesorectal excision: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether robotic surgery (RS) decreases the risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) in patients with rectal cancer (RC) undergoing mesorectal excision (ME).

BACKGROUND

Although it is well known that CRM positivity affects postoperative outcomes in patients with RC undergoing ME, few studies have investigated whether RS is superior to conventional LS for the risk of CRM positivity.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature up to December 2022 to identify studies that compared the risk of CRM positivity between patients with RC undergoing robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity was analyzed using I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies, consisting of 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 propensity score matching (PSM) studies, involved a total of 9203 patients with RC who underwent ME were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that RS decreased the overall risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.82; 95 % CI, 0.73-0.92; P = 0.001; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS. Results of a meta-analysis of the 4 selected RCTs also showed that RS decreased the risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.62; 95 % CI, 0.43-0.91; P = 0.01; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that RS is associated with a decreased risk of CRM positivity compared with conventional LS in patients with RC undergoing ME.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for early-stage rectal cancer: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis (in China)

BACKGROUND

Despite the global increase in the adoption of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (R-NOSES), its advantages over robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (R-TSES) for treating early-stage rectal cancer remain debated. There is scant nationwide, multicenter studies comparing the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES for this condition.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study was conducted nationally across multiple centers to compare the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES in early-stage rectal cancer.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort trial.

SETTING

Eight experienced surgeons from 8 high-volume Chinese colorectal cancer treatment centers.

PATIENTS

The study included 1086 patients who underwent R-NOSES or R-TSES from October 2015 to November 2023 at the 8 centers. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma; (2) robotic total mesorectal excision; (3) postoperative pathological staging of TisN0M0 or T1-2N0M0; (4) availability of complete surgical and postoperative follow-up data. Patients were matched 1:1 in the R-NOSES and R-TSES groups using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique.

RESULTS

After PSM, 318 matched pairs with well-balanced patient characteristics were identified. The operation time for the R-NOSES group was significantly longer than that for the R-TSES group [140 min (125-170 min) vs. 140 min (120-160 min), P = 0.032]. Conversely, the times to first flatus and initial oral intake in the R-NOSES group were significantly shorter than those in the R-TSES group [48 h (41-56 h) vs. 48 h (44-62 h), P = 0.049 and 77 h (72-94 h) vs. 82 h (72-96 h), P = 0.008], respectively. Additionally, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the R-NOSES group compared with the R-TSES group [7 day (7-9 day) vs. 8 day (7-9 day), P = 0.005]. The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.7% in the R-NOSES group vs. 11.9% in the R-TSES group, P = 0.617). However, the R-NOSES group had a lower incidence of wound complications compared to the R-TSES group (0.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.015). Regarding surgical stress response, the R-NOSES group showed superior outcomes. Additionally, patients in the R-NOSES group required fewer additional analgesics on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5 and reported lower pain scores compared to the R-TSES group. The body image scale (BIS) and cosmetic scale (CS) scores were also significantly higher in the R-NOSES group. Furthermore, the R-NOSES group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in functional dimensions such as physical, role, emotional, social, and cognitive functioning, and in symptoms like fatigue and pain, when compared to the R-TSES group.

LIMITATIONS

It is imperative to ensure the safe and standardized implementation of R-NOSES through the establishment of a uniform training protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

These results affirm that R-NOSES is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage rectal cancer when meticulously executed by skilled surgeons.

Pathologic Outcomes of Short-Course and Long-Course Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancers Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is now the standard of care. Randomized trials suggest the use of short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) and long-course radiotherapy (LCRT) are oncologically equivalent.

OBJECTIVE

To describe pathologic outcomes after surgical resections of patients receiving SCRT versus LCRT as part of TNT for LARC.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with LARC treated at a single tertiary hospital who underwent proctectomy after completing TNT were included. Patients were excluded if adequate details of TNT were not available in the electronic medical record.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients with LARC were included. Thirty-nine patients (73.5%) received LCRT and 14 (26.4%) received SCRT. Forty-nine patients (92.5%) were clinical stage III (cN1-2) prior to treatment. The average lymph node yield after proctectomy was 20.9 for SCRT and 17.0 for LCRT (P = .075). Of the 49 patients with clinically positive nodes before treatment, 76.9% of those who received SCRT and 72.2% of those who received LCRT achieved pN0 disease after TNT. Additionally, there were no significant differences in rates of pathologic complete response between patients who received SCRT and LCRT, 7.1% and 12.8%, respectively (P = .565).

CONCLUSION

Pathologic outcomes of patients with LARC treated with SCRT or LCRT, as part of TNT, may be similar. Further prospective trials are needed to assess long-term clinical outcomes and to determine best treatment protocols.

Feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery in advanced rectal cancer: a multicentre prospective phase II study (VITRUVIANO trial)

BACKGROUND

The potential benefits of robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced cancer have not been sufficiently proven by prospective studies. One factor is speculated to be the lack of strict surgeon criteria. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes for robotic surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with strict surgeon experience criteria.

METHODS

A criterion was set requiring surgeons to have performed more than 40 robotically assisted operations for rectal cancer. Between March 2020 and May 2022, patients with rectal cancer (distance from the anal verge of 12 cm or less, cT2-T4a, cN0-N3, cM0, or cT1-T4a, cN1-N3, cM0) were registered. The primary endpoint was the rate positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) from the pathological specimen. Secondary endpoints were surgical outcomes, pathological results, postoperative complications, and longterm outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 321 registered patients, 303 were analysed, excluding 18 that were ineligible. At diagnosis: stage I (n = 68), stage II (n = 84) and stage III (n = 151). Neoadjuvant therapy was used in 56 patients. There were no conversions to open surgery. The median console time to rectal resection was 170 min, and the median blood loss was 5 ml. Fourteen patients had a positive CRM (4.6%). Grade III-IV postoperative complications were observed in 13 patients (4.3%).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted surgery is feasible for locally advanced rectal cancer when strict surgeon criteria are used.

Technical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal tumors: a single-center safety and feasibility study

PURPOSE

Robot-assisted surgery has a multi-joint function, which improves manipulation of the deep pelvic region and contributes significantly to perioperative safety. However, the superiority of robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopic surgery remains controversial. This study compared the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included 273 patients with rectal tumors who underwent surgery with anastomosis between 2017 and 2021. In total, 169 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (Lap group), and 104 underwent robot-assisted surgery (Robot group). Postoperative complications were compared via propensity score matching based on inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

The postoperative complication rates based on the Clavien-Dindo classification (Lap vs. Robot group) were as follows: grade ≥ II, 29.0% vs. 19.2%; grade ≥ III, 10.7% vs. 5.8%; anastomotic leakage (AL), 6.5% vs. 4.8%; and urinary dysfunction (UD), 12.1% vs. 3.8%. After adjusting for the IPTW method, although AL rates did not differ significantly between groups, postoperative complications of both grade ≥ II (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.87, p < 0.01) and grade ≥ III (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.53, p < 0.01) were significantly less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group. Furthermore, urinary dysfunction also tended to be less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.00; p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors provides better short-term outcomes than laparoscopic surgery, supporting its use as a safer approach.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for visceral obesity in mid-low rectal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

Obesity is becoming more and more common, and measuring visceral fat area (VFA) is a useful diagnostic technique for visceral obesity (VO). The purpose of this research is to compare the surgical results of robotic versus laparoscopic rectal surgery, with a focus on assessing the benefits of the latter method for treating both VO and mid-low rectal cancer. Patients receiving laparoscopic or robotic anterior rectal excision at Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital's general surgery department were included in the retrospective analysis. 242 people in all took part in the study; 121 cases were assigned to the robotic surgery (RS) group and another 121 cases to the laparoscopic surgery (LS) group. In comparison to LS, our results show that RS led to a shorter period for the recovery of bowel function (p = 0.03), a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001), a smaller intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001), and a shorter time until the commencement of oral intake (p = 0.041). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the indices of histopathologic specimens, the proportion of temporary loop ileostomy, and the incidence of early postoperative problems (p > 0.05). When patients with VO undergo surgery for rectal cancer, RS has the added benefit of accelerating patient recovery while producing results that are similar to LS in the near run.

Intersphincteric resection following robotic-assisted versus laparoscopy-assisted total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a multicentre propensity score analysis of 1571 patients

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (RaTME) may be associated with reduced conversion to an open approach and a higher rate of complete total mesorectal excision (TME); however, studies on its advantages in intersphincteric resection (ISR) are inadequate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study enroled consecutive patients who underwent RaTME and laparoscopy-assisted total mesorectal excision (LaTME) at four medical centres between January 2020 and March 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW), and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The primary outcome was the ISR rate. Secondary outcomes were coloanal anastomosis (CAA), conversion to open surgery, conversion to transanal TME, abdominoperineal resection, postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days, and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the 1571 patients, 1211 and 450 underwent LaTME and RaTME, respectively, with corresponding ISR incidences of 5.3% and 8.4% ( P =0.024). After PSM and IPTW, RaTME remained associated with higher ISR rates (4.5% versus 9.4%, P =0.022 after PSM; 4.9% versus 9.2, P =0.005 after IPTW). This association remained in multivariate analysis after adjusting for other confounding factors. RaTME was further associated with a higher CAA rate, longer operating time, and higher hospitalization expenses.

CONCLUSIONS

RaTME may facilitate ISR in middle and low rectal cancers, showing an independent association with a higher ISR incidence, with pathological outcomes and complications comparable to those of LaTME. However, it may also require a longer operating time and incur higher hospitalization expenses.

Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant literature from PubMed, NCBI, Medline, and Springer databases, spanning the database inception until August 2023. The focus of this systematic review was on controlled studies that compared the treatment outcomes of robot-assisted (Rob) and conventional laparoscopy (Lap) in the context of mid and low rectal cancer. Data extraction and literature review were meticulously conducted by two independent researchers (HMW and RKG). The synthesized data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, adhering to established methodological standards in systematic reviews. The primary outcomes encompass perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes include long-term outcomes.

RESULT

A total of 11 studies involving 2239 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were included (3 RCTs and 8 NRCTs); the Rob group consisted of 1111 cases, while the Lap group included 1128 cases. The Rob group exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (MD =  -40.01, 95% CI: -57.61 to -22.42, P < 0.00001), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.82, P = 0.02), a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.18, P = 0.001), and a lower CRM positive rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95, P = 0.04). Additionally, the Rob group had lower postoperative morbidity rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) and a lower occurrence rate of complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.90, P = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis revealed a lower anastomotic leakage rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the analysis of operation time (P = 0.42), occurrence rates of protective stoma (P = 0.81), PRM (P = 0.92), and DRM (P = 0.23), time to flatus (P = 0.18), time to liquid diet (P = 0.65), total hospital stay (P = 0.35), 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.67), and 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment for mid and low rectal cancer yields favorable outcomes, demonstrating both efficacy and safety. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, patients experience reduced intraoperative bleeding and a lower incidence of complications. Notably, the method achieves comparable short-term and long-term treatment results to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery, thus justifying its consideration for widespread clinical application.

Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, while in some respects equivalent or even preferable to open surgery, is challenged in specific conditions where the tumor is located in the middle and lower third of the rectum. Robotic surgery equipped with a superior arm of machinery and gained better visualization can compensate for the deficiency of the laparoscopic approach. This study adopted a propensity matched analysis to compare the functional and oncological short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. All patients who underwent proctectomy have been collected prospectively between December 2019 and November 2022. After censoring for inclusion criteria, we performed a propensity matching analysis. A detailed collection of post-operative examination indicators was performed, while the K-M survival curves were plotted to analyze post-operative oncology outcomes. The LARS scale was designed to evaluate the anal function of patients in the form of questionnaires. Totally, 215 patients underwent robotic operations while 1011 patients selected laparoscopic operations. Patients matched 1∶1 by propensity score were divided into the robotic and laparoscopic groups, 210 cases were included in each group. All patients underwent a follow-up for a median period of 18.3 months. Robotic surgery was connected with an enhanced recovery including the earlier time to first flatus passage without ileostomy (P = 0.050), the earlier time to liquid diet without ileostomy (P = 0.040), lower incidence of urinary retention (P = 0.043), better anal function 1 month after LAR without ileostomy (P < 0.001), longer operative time (\P = 0.042), compared with laparoscopic operations. The oncological outcomes and occurrence of other complications were comparable between the two approaches. For mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery could be recognized as an effective technique with identical short-term outcomes of oncology and better anal function in comparison to laparoscopic surgery. However, multi-center studies with larger samples are expected to validate the long-term outcomes of robotic surgery.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Can Colorectal Surgery Be Performed as an Outpatient Surgery?

The potential to discharge patients safely within the same day after colorectal surgery has developed over time with concurrent advances in concepts of enhanced recovery pathways, along with minimally invasive techniques available to surgeons. The advent of planned same-day discharges after elective colectomy is made possible by research establishing improved length of stay with minimal morbidity in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery and especially minimally invasive surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. In tracing the timeline of research and development of knowledge in this setting, the safety of outpatient colorectal surgery can be established.

Possible Advantages of Minimal-Invasive Approaches in Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis

(1) Background: Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer was introduced in the early 1990s; the aim of this analysis was to show possible advantages of minimal-invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery. (2) Methods: From 2016 to 2020, all patients undergoing open, laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery in Germany were retrospectively analyzed regarding sex distribution, conversion rates and in-hospital mortality rates according to nationwide hospital billing data based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). (3) Results: In total, 68,112 patients were analyzed, and most commonly, low anterior rectal resections with primary anastomosis (n = 25,824) were performed with an increase of minimal-invasive procedures over the years (open: 51% to 27%; laparoscopic: 47% to 63% and robotic: 2% to 10%). In-hospital mortality rate was 2.95% (n = 2012). In total, 4.61%, 1.77%, 1.14% and 3.95% of patients with open, laparoscopic, robotic and converted-to-open surgery died during hospital stay, respectively (open vs. laparoscopic p < 0.0001; open vs. robotic p < 0.00001; laparoscopic vs. robotic p = 0.001). Conversion rates were significantly more favorable in the robotic compared to the laparoscopic group. (11.94% vs. 2.53%; p < 0.0001). (4) Conclusion: Minimal-invasive rectal cancer surgery might have some advantages in terms of a reduced in-hospital mortality, and an improved conversion rate for the robotic approach.

Short-term outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery: a propensity score match study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery offers improved short-term outcomes over open surgery but can be technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used for IPAA surgery, but there is limited evidence supporting its use. This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic IPAA procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic IPAA surgery at 3 centres, from 3 countries, between 2008 and 2019 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for gender, previous abdominal surgery, ASA grade (I, II vs III, IV) and procedure performed (proctocolectomy vs completion proctectomy). Their short-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were identified (73 laparoscopic, 16 robotic). The 16 patients that received robotic surgery were matched with 15 laparoscopic patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated short-term outcomes. Length of stay trend was higher for laparoscopic surgery (9 vs 7 days, p = 0.072) CONCLUSION: Robotic IPAA surgery is safe and feasible and offers similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay may be lower for robotic IPAA surgery, but further larger scale studies are required in order to demonstrate this.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis

The benefits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remain controversial. Only a few studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of RALS following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of RALS versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) after NCRT for rectal cancer. Propensity score matching of 111 consecutive patients who underwent RALS or CLS after NCRT for rectal adenocarcinoma between February 2014 and February 2022 was performed. Among them, 60 matched patients were enrolled and their short-term outcomes were compared. Although operative time, conversion rate to open laparotomy and blood loss were comparable, the incidence of postoperative complications, including anastomotic leakage, was significantly lower, urinary retention tended to be lower, and the days to soft diet intake and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the RALS than the CLS group. No postoperative mortality was observed in either group, and there were no significant differences in terms of resection margins and number of lymph nodes dissected. RALS after NCRT for rectal cancer is safe and technically feasible, and has acceptable short-term outcomes. Further studies are required for validation of the long-term oncological outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is gaining popularity, but evidence on long-term oncological outcomes is scarce. We aimed to compare surgical quality and long-term oncological outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with middle and low rectal cancer. Here we report the short-term outcomes of this trial.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial was done at 11 hospitals in eight provinces of China. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with middle (>5 to 10 cm from the anal verge) or low (≤5 cm from the anal verge) rectal adenocarcinoma, cT1-T3 N0-N1 or ycT1-T3 Nx, and no evidence of distant metastasis. Central randomisation was done by use of an online system and was stratified according to participating centre, sex, BMI, tumour location, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive robotic or conventional laparoscopic surgery. All surgical procedures complied with the principles of total mesorectal excision or partial mesorectal excision (for tumours located higher in the rectum). Lymph nodes at the origin of the inferior mesenteric artery were dissected. In the robotic group, the excision procedures and dissection of lymph nodes were done by use of robotic techniques. Neither investigators nor patients were masked to the treatment allocation but the assessment of pathological outcomes was masked to the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was 3-year locoregional recurrence rate, but the data for this endpoint are not yet mature. Secondary short-term endpoints are reported in this article, including two key secondary endpoints: circumferential resection margin positivity and 30-day postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher). The outcomes were analysed according in a modified intention-to-treat population (according to the original assigned groups and excluding patients who did not undergo surgery or no longer met inclusion criteria after randomisation). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02817126. Study recruitment has completed, and the follow-up is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between July 17, 2016, and Dec 21, 2020, 1742 patients were assessed for eligibility. 502 patients were excluded, and 1240 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either robotic surgery (620 patients) or laparoscopic surgery (620 patients). 69 patients were excluded (34 in the robotic surgery group and 35 in the laparoscopic surgery group). 1171 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (586 in the robotic group and 585 in the laparoscopic group). Six patients in the robotic surgery group received laparoscopic surgery and seven patients in the laparoscopic surgery group received robotic surgery. 22 (4·0%) of 547 patients in the robotic group had a positive circumferential resection margin as did 39 (7·2%) of 543 patients in the laparoscopic group (difference -3·2 percentage points [95% CI -6·0 to -0·4]; p=0·023). 95 (16·2%) of patients in the robotic group had at least one postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher) within 30 days after surgery, as did 135 (23·1%) of 585 patients in the laparoscopic group (difference -6·9 percentage points [-11·4 to -2·3]; p=0·003). More patients in the robotic group had a macroscopic complete resection than in the laparoscopic group (559 [95·4%] of 586 patients vs 537 [91·8%] of 585 patients, difference 3·6 percentage points [0·8 to 6·5]). Patients in the robotic group had better postoperative gastrointestinal recovery, shorter postoperative hospital stay (median 7·0 days [IQR 7·0 to 11·0] vs 8·0 days [7·0 to 12·0], difference -1·0 [95% CI -1·0 to 0·0]; p=0·0001), fewer abdominoperineal resections (99 [16·9%] of 586 patients vs 133 [22·7%] of 585 patients, difference -5·8 percentage points [-10·4 to -1·3]), fewer conversions to open surgery (10 [1·7%] of 586 patients vs 23 [3·9%] of 585 patients, difference -2·2 percentage points [-4·3 to -0·4]; p=0·021), less estimated blood loss (median 40·0 mL [IQR 30·0 to 100·0] vs 50·0 mL [40·0 to 100·0], difference -10·0 [-20·0 to -10·0]; p<0·0001), and fewer intraoperative complications (32 [5·5%] of 586 patients vs 51 [8·7%] of 585 patients; difference -3·3 percentage points [-6·3 to -0·3]; p=0·030) than patients in the laparoscopic group.

INTERPRETATION

Secondary short-term outcomes suggest that for middle and low rectal cancer, robotic surgery resulted in better oncological quality of resection than conventional laparoscopic surgery, with less surgical trauma, and better postoperative recovery.

FUNDING

Shenkang Hospital Development Center, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (Shanghai, China), and Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University (Shanghai, China).

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Whether rectal cancer surgery by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery provides beneficial advantages remains controversial. Although favorable outcomes in terms of the safety and technical feasibility of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery have been demonstrated for rectal cancer, long-term oncological outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery have only been examined in a few studies. This retrospective study of subjects who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery evaluated short- and long-term outcomes of consecutive rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Between November 2016 and January 2020, we analyzed the records of 62 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma without distant metastasis to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Tumors were located in the lower or mid-rectum (88.7%) in most patients. The median operative time was 357 min. No patient received transfusions, and the median blood loss was 10.5 ml. Open laparotomy was not required in any patient. A Clavien-Dindo classification of all grades was observed in 12 patients (19.4%). Positive radial margin was not observed in any patient. Duration of median follow-up was 40.5 mo, while 3-y overall survival and 3-y relapse-free survival rates were 96.8% and 85.0%, respectively. The local recurrence rate was 3.4%.

CONCLUSION

Favorable short- and long-term outcomes demonstrated robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was safe and technically feasible for rectal cancer.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

The advantages of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remain controversial. This study clarified and compared the short-term outcomes of RALS for rectal cancer with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

The records of 303 consecutive patients who underwent RALS or CLS for rectal adenocarcinoma between November 2016 and November 2021 were analyzed using propensity score-matched analysis. After matching, 188 patients were enrolled in our study to compare short-term outcomes, such as operative results, postoperative complications, and pathological findings, in each group.

RESULTS

After matching, baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Although operative time in the RALS group was significantly longer than in the CLS group (p < 0.0001), the conversion rate to open laparotomy and the postoperative complication rate in the RALS group were significantly lower than in the CLS group (p = 0.0240 and p = 0.0109, respectively). Blood loss was comparable between groups. In the RALS group, postoperative hospital stay and days to soft diet were significantly shorter than those in the CLS group (p = 0.0464 and p < 0.0001, respectively). No postoperative mortality was observed in either group and significant differences were observed in resection margins and number of lymph nodes harvested.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was safe, technically feasible, and had acceptable short-term outcomes. Further studies are required to validate long-term oncological outcomes.

Effects of surgical approach on short- and long-term outcomes in early-stage rectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score-weighted cohort study

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have been unable to demonstrate noninferiority of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to assess oncologic resection success, short- and long-term morbidity, and overall survival by operative approach in a homogenous early-stage rectal cancer cohort.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, propensity score-weighted cohort study utilizing deidentified data from the National Cancer Database. Individuals who underwent a formal proctectomy for early-stage rectal cancer (T1-2, N0, M0) from 2010 to 2015 were included. The primary outcome was a composite variable indicating successful oncologic resection stratified by operative approach, defined as negative margins with at least 12 lymph nodes evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 3649 proctectomies for rectal adenocarcinoma, 1660 (45%) were approached open, 1461 (40%) laparoscopically, and 528 (15%) robotically. After propensity score weighting, compared to open approach, there were no differences in odds of successful oncologic resection (OR_adj = 1.07, 95% CI 0.9, 1.28 and OR_adj = 1.28, 95% CI 0.97, 1.7). Open approach was associated with longer mean (± SD) length of stay compared to laparoscopic (7.7 ± 0.18 vs. 6.5 ± 0.25 days, p < 0.001) and robotic (7.7 ± 0.18 vs. 6.3 ± 0.35 days, p < 0.001) approaches. In regard to 90-day mortality, compared to open approach, laparoscopic (OR_adj = 0.56, 95% CI 0.36, 0.88) and robotic (OR_adj = 0.45, 95% CI 0.22, 0.94) approaches were associated with a reduced odd of 90-day mortality. This mortality benefit persists in the long-term for laparoscopic approach (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

For individuals with early-stage rectal cancer treated with proctectomy, successful oncologic resection can be achieved irrespective of technical approach. Minimally invasive approaches provide short-term reduction in morbidity. Surgical approach must be tailored to each patient based on surgeon experience and judgement in collaboration with a multi-disciplinary team.

Postoperative complications after robotic resection of colorectal cancer: An analysis based on 5-year experience at a large-scale center

BACKGROUND

As a common gastrointestinal malignancy, colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a serious health threat globally. Robotic surgery is one of the future trends in surgical treatment of CRC. Robotic surgery has several technical advantages over laparoscopic surgery, including 3D visualization, elimination of the fulcrum effect, and better ergonomic positioning, which together lead to better surgical outcomes and faster recovery. However, analysis of independent factors of postoperative complications after robotic surgery is still insufficient.

AIM

To analyze the incidence and risk factors for postoperative complications after robotic surgery in patients with CRC.

METHODS

In total, 1040 patients who had undergone robotic surgical resection for CRC between May 2015 and May 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification, and possible risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 1040 patients who had undergone robotic surgery for CRC, the overall, severe, local, and systemic complication rates were 12.2%, 2.4%, 8.8%, and 3.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that multiple organ resection (P < 0.001) and level III American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = 0.006) were independent risk factors for overall complications. Multivariate analysis identified multiple organ resection (P < 0.001) and comorbidities (P = 0.029) as independent risk factors for severe complications (C-D grade III or higher). Regarding local complications, multiple organ resection (P = 0.002) and multiple bowel resection (P = 0.027) were independent risk factors. Multiple organ resection (P < 0.001) and level III ASA score (P = 0.007) were independent risk factors for systemic complications. Additionally, sigmoid colectomy had a lower incidence of overall complications (6.4%; P = 0.006) and local complications (4.7%; P = 0.028) than other types of colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Multiple organ resection, level III ASA score, comorbidities, and multiple bowel resection were risk factors for postoperative complications, with multiple organ resection being the most likely.

Automated segmentation by deep learning of loose connective tissue fibers to define safe dissection planes in robot-assisted gastrectomy

The prediction of anatomical structures within the surgical field by artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to support surgeons’ experience and cognitive skills. We aimed to develop a deep-learning model to automatically segment loose connective tissue fibers (LCTFs) that define a safe dissection plane. The annotation was performed on video frames capturing a robot-assisted gastrectomy performed by trained surgeons. A deep-learning model based on U-net was developed to output segmentation results. Twenty randomly sampled frames were provided to evaluate model performance by comparing Recall and F1/Dice scores with a ground truth and with a two-item questionnaire on sensitivity and misrecognition that was completed by 20 surgeons. The model produced high Recall scores (mean 0.606, maximum 0.861). Mean F1/Dice scores reached 0.549 (range 0.335–0.691), showing acceptable spatial overlap of the objects. Surgeon evaluators gave a mean sensitivity score of 3.52 (with 88.0% assigning the highest score of 4; range 2.45–3.95). The mean misrecognition score was a low 0.14 (range 0–0.7), indicating very few acknowledged over-detection failures. Thus, AI can be trained to predict fine, difficult-to-discern anatomical structures at a level convincing to expert surgeons. This technology may help reduce adverse events by determining safe dissection planes.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Discussion

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

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

Supplementary Information

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

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

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

A nomogram predicting the difficulty of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with performing a difficult laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer, and to establish a predictive nomogram to help individual clinical treatment decisions.

METHODS

A total of 977 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical resection between January 2014 and December 2016 were enrolled in this study. The difficulty of laparoscopic-assisted rectal resection (LARR) was defined according to the scoring criteria reported by Escal. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the variables that may affect the difficulty of LARR, and a nomogram predicting the surgical difficulty was created.

RESULTS

A multivariate analysis demonstrated that a BMI > 28 kg/m², the distance between the tumor and the anal margin ≤ 5 cm, the maximum transverse tumor diameter > 3 cm tumor, interspinous distance < 10 cm, history of abdominal surgery, and preoperative radiotherapy were independent risk factors and they were, therefore, included in the predictive nomogram for identifying a difficult LARR.

CONCLUSIONS

This study defined a difficult LARR and identified independent risk factors for a difficult operation and created a predictive nomogram for difficult LARR. This nomogram may facilitate the stratification of patients at risk for being associated with a difficult LARR for rectal cancer.

Implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program with robotic surgery in high-risk patients obtains optimal results after colorectal resections

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs reduce postoperative complications and length of stay after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, but are still under evaluation after robotic colorectal surgery. To evaluate potential benefits in terms of length of stay and complications of an Enhanced recovery after surgery program in colorectal surgery. A subanalysis was performed to assess what combination of surgical approach and perioperative care had better outcomes. Prospective observational cohort study. 300 consecutive colorectal surgery patients: 150 were prospectively included in the enhanced recovery after Surgery program group and 150 retrospectively in the traditional care group, and subdivided according to the type of surgery, in Hospital Marques de Valdecilla, between 2013 and 2016. Postoperative complications decreased significantly (p = 0.002) from 46 to 28% (traditional care vs program group). The length of stay was decreased by 2 days (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated similar effect sizes after adjusting for age, gender, Charlson score, and type of surgery. Type of surgery was an independent predictive factor for postoperative complications and length of stay. Compared to open surgery, postoperative complications decreased by 50% (p < 0.001) after robotic surgery and by 40% (p = 0.01) after laparoscopic surgery, while the median length of stay decreased by three days (p < 0.001) after minimally invasive surgery. Enhanced recovery after surgery program and minimally invasive surgery were associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay after colorectal surgery compared to open surgery and traditional care. An enhanced recovery after surgery program with robotic surgery in high-risk patients might be beneficial.

Outsourcing robotic-assisted operations to private hospitals: Cost analysis of a retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

The Lyell McEwin Hospital entered into a public-private collaborative agreement in 2019 in order to access Da Vinci® Xi Surgical Systems (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in private hospitals. This study aimed to examine the costs associated with usage of robot surgical systems under the agreement, and the potential for acquisition in the public hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective data on robotic-assisted and equivalent operations performed between 1 May 2019 and 30 April 2020 were collected and formed subsequent model inputs. Cost data were from hospital records and the local Da Vinci® Xi distributor. Clinical workflow of operations was simulated with a decision-analytic model, with output being costs incurred. The model's base case scenario assumed 5% of cases were robotically assisted.

RESULTS

A total of 35 robotic-assisted, 101 laparoscopic and 34 open operations were performed. Patients were predominantly male and overweight with multiple comorbidities. Length of stay and duration of operation were associated with increased costs (p < 0.001, r² 0.72). In the base case scenario, there was a cost of AU$26 424 per patient, with an open conversion rate of 11%. Increasing robotic-assisted case percentage resulted in reduced cost, open conversion rates and length of stay. Extrapolation of cost model data indicated if 50% were robotic-assisted cases, then the initial capital investment (assumed at AU$4 000 000) could be recovered in 10 years.

CONCLUSION

Our model highlights potential advantages of performing greater numbers of robotic-assisted operations in a collaborative environment. Cost-effective analysis with prospective data could evaluate if these results are translatable and potentially support acquisition of robotic systems in the public sector.

Two-Year Follow-Up of the First Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) Case Performed in Community Hospital in Hawai'i: A Case Report and Literature Review

Surgical management of rectal cancer has evolved with the advent of total mesorectal excision (TME) and neo-adjuvant treatment allowing for more sphincter-preserving proctectomies. The laparoscopic approach to TME has numerous advantages over the open approach, including faster recovery, fewer wound complications, and overall reduced morbidity. However, laparoscopic dissection around the distal portion of the rectum is particularly difficult, and thus makes achieving TME completeness and negative resection margins for low rectal tumors a challenge. Transanal TME (TaTME) is designed to overcome these difficulties. It is performed in addition to laparoscopic operation as a bottom-up approach facilitating dissection around the distal rectum. More importantly, TaTME has been shown to have the potential to improve oncological outcomes of minimally-invasive sphincter-preserving proctectomy by providing better TME specimen quality and resection margins. Although interest in TaTME has been growing worldwide, the technique is still relatively new, and adoption into routine practice may be challenging. Potential criteria for successful adoption of the TaTME technique include experience in laparoscopic rectal resection and transanal minimally-invasive surgery (TAMIS), cadaveric TaTME training, and a multidisciplinary approach to selection and management of patients with rectal cancer. Once these criteria are met, gradual and careful implementation of TaTME could be feasible. This report describes the 2-year follow-up of the first TaTME case in Hawai'i managed by a multidisciplinary oncological team in a community hospital setting.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

It remains controversial whether the advantages of robotic-assisted surgery are beneficial for rectal cancer (RC). The study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) compared with those of conventional laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery. We retrospectively analyzed 539 consecutive patients with stage I-IV RC who had undergone elective surgery between January 2010 and December 2020, using propensity score-matched analysis. After propensity score matching, we enrolled 200 patients (n = 100 in each groups). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in terms of age (p = 0.04) and body mass index (p < 0.01). After matching, clinicopathologic outcomes were similar between the groups, but estimated operative time was longer and postoperative lymphorrhea was more frequent in the RARS group. Estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to laparotomy, and incidence of anastomotic leakage or reoperation were significantly lower in the RARS group. No surgical mortality was observed in either group. No significant differences were observed in terms of positive resection margins or number of lymph nodes harvested. RARS was safe and technically feasible, and achieved acceptable short-term outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in RC surgery that require validation in further studies.

Colorectal robotic surgery: INCA's experience

Introduction Minimally invasive surgery has revolutionized surgical management in the treatment of colorectal neoplasms, reducing morbidity and mortality, hospitalization, inactivity time and minimizing cost, as well as providing adequate oncological results when compared to the conventional approach. Robotic surgery, with Da Vinci Platform, emerges as a step ahead for its potentials. The objective of this article is to report the single institutional experience with the use of Da Vinci Platform in robotic colorectal surgeries performed at a reference center in oncological surgery in Brazil.

Materials and methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on the prospective database of patients from the institution submitted to robotic surgery for treatment of colorectal cancer from July 2012 to September 2017. Clinical and surgical variables were analyzed as predictors of morbidity and mortality.

Results A total of 117 patients underwent robotic surgery. The complications related to surgery occurred in 33 patients (28%), the most frequent being anastomotic fistula and surgical wound infection, which corresponded to 11% and 3%, respectively. Conversion rate was 1.7%. Median length of stay was 5 days. The only variable associated with increase of complications and death risk was BMI >30, with p-value of 0.038 and 0.027, respectively.

Conclusion Robotic surgery is safe and feasible for approaching colorectal cancer surgeries, presenting satisfactory results regarding length of hospital stay and rate of operative complications, as well as presenting a low rate of conversion. Obesity has been shown to be a risk factor for surgical complication in robotic colorectal surgery.

Functional outcome and quality of life following treatment for rectal cancer

Introduction Over the last decades, treatment for rectal cancer has substantially improved with development of new surgical options and treatment modalities. With the improvement of survival, functional outcome and quality of life are getting more attention.

Study objective To provide an overview of current modalities in rectal cancer treatment, with particular emphasis on functional outcomes and quality of life.

Results Functional outcomes after rectal cancer treatment are influenced by patient and tumor characteristics, surgical technique, the use of preoperative radiotherapy and the method and level of anastomosis. Sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer often results in poor functional outcomes that impair quality of life, referred to as low anterior resection syndrome. Abdominoperineal resection imposes the need for a permanent stoma but avoids the risk of this syndrome. Contrary to general belief, long-term quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma is similar to those after sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer.

Conclusion All patients should be informed about the risks of treatment modalities. Decision on rectal cancer treatment should be individualized since not all patients may benefit from a sphincter preserving surgery “at any price”. Non-resection treatment should be the future focus to avoid the need of a permanent stoma and bowel dysfunction.

Short-term clinical outcomes of a European training programme for robotic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite there being a considerable amount of published studies on robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) over the last few years, there is a lack of evidence regarding RCS training pathways. This study examines the short-term clinical outcomes of an international RCS training programme (the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery-EARCS).

METHODS

Consecutive cases from 26 European colorectal units who conducted RCS between 2014 and 2018 were included in this study. The baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of cases performed by EARCS delegates during training were analysed and compared with cases performed by EARCS graduates and proctors.

RESULTS

Data from 1130 RCS procedures were collected and classified into three cohort groups (323 training, 626 graduates and 181 proctors). The training cases conversion rate was 2.2% and R1 resection rate was 1.5%. The three groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics with the exception of malignant cases and rectal resections performed. With the exception of operative time, blood loss and hospital stay (training vs. graduate vs. proctor: operative time 302, 265, 255 min, p < 0.001; blood loss 50, 50, 30 ml, p < 0.001; hospital stay 7, 6, 6 days, p = 0.003), all remaining short-term outcomes (conversion, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, complications, R1 resection and lymph node yield) were comparable between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal surgeons learning how to perform RCS under the EARCS-structured training pathway can safely achieve short-term clinical outcomes comparable to their trainers and overcome the learning process in a way that minimises patient harm.

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.

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

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

Robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers: has a paradigm change occurred? A systematic review by updated meta-analysis

AIM

The debate about the oncological adequacy, safety and efficiency of robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers continues. Therefore, an updated, traditional and cumulative meta-analysis was performed with the aim of assessing the new evidence on this topic.

METHOD

A systematic search of the literature for data pertaining to the last 25 years was performed. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to cumulatively assess the accumulation of evidence over time.

RESULTS

Patients with a significantly higher body mass index (BMI), tumours located approximately 1 cm further distally and more patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were included in the robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) cohort compared with those in the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) cohort [RTME, mean difference (MD) = 0.22 (0.07, 0.36), P = 0.005; LTME, MD = -0.97 (-1.57, 0.36), P < 0.002; OR = 1.47 (1.11, 1.93), P = 0.006]. Significantly lower conversion rates to open surgery were observed in the RTME cohort than in the LTME cohort [OR = 0.33 (0.24, 0.46), P < 0.001]. Operative time in the LTME cohort was significantly reduced (by 50 min) compared with the RTME cohort. Subgroup analysis of the three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) challenged all the significant results of the main analysis and demonstrated nonsignificant differences between the RTME cohort and LTME cohort.

CONCLUSION

Although the RTME cohort included patients with a significantly higher BMI, more distal tumours and more patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, this cohort demonstrated lower conversion rates to open surgery when compared with the LTME cohort. However, subgroup analysis of the RCTs demonstrated nonsignificant differences between the two procedures.

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

BACKGROUND

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

SUMMARY

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

The severity of postoperative complications after robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

Objective

Robotic surgery (RS) has been increasingly used for the resection of rectal cancer, and its advantages over laparoscopic surgery (LS) have been demonstrated. However, few studies focused on the severity of postoperative complications. This study aimed to compared the postoperative complications within 30 days after RS over LS according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification.

Methods

A literature research of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically performed. The studies comparing the complications of RS and LS for rectal cancer based on the C-D classification were enrolled. Primary outcomes were C-D grade III, IV, V, III-V (severe complications).

Results

Seventeen studies (3193 patients) were included in the final analysis: 1554 underwent RS and 1639 underwent LS. The RS group was associated with significantly lower rates of severe complications (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.90, P = 0.005), C-D grade IV (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.90, P = 0.005), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48–0.91, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in C-D grade III, C-D grade I, II, I-II (minor complications), overall complications, bleeding, wound complications, postoperative ileus, urinary retention, readmission, reoperation between two groups.

Conclusions

Robotic surgery is safe for rectal cancer and may be an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery, with lower rates of severe complications, C-D grade IV, and anastomotic leak. Further large randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this conclusion.

Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in management of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched electronic data sources with application of combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits. Perioperative clinical and short-term oncological outcomes were evaluated. Trial Sequential Analysis of the outcomes was conducted.

RESULTS

Nine randomised-controlled trials reporting 1463 patients evaluating outcomes of robotic TME (n = 728) and laparoscopic TME (n = 735) were included. Although the robotic approach was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD 31.64, P = 0.002), it was associated with significantly longer DRM (MD 0.8, P = 0.004) and shorter time to soft diet (MD - 0.50, P = 0.03) compared to the laparoscopic approach. Moreover, there was no significant difference in intraoperative (RR 1.07, P = 0.76)) and postoperative (RR 0.97, P = 0.81) complications, anastomotic leak (RR 0.93, P = 0.69), conversion to open rate (RR 0.46, P = 0.05), blood loss (MD 19.65, P = 0.74), time to first flatus (MD - 0.30, P = 0.37), LARS (RR 0.83, P = 0.41), ileus (RR 0.72, P = 0.39), positive CRM (RR 0.82, P = 0.49), PRM (MD - 0.5, P = 0.55), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.33, P = 0.58), or length of stay (MD - 0.60, P = 0.12) between two groups. The Trial Sequential Analysis demonstrated that the risk of type 1 and type 2 errors was minimal in most outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggested that robotic and laparoscopic TME may be comparable in terms of clinical and short-term oncological profile but the robotic approach may be associated with longer procedure time. Future high-quality randomised studies are encouraged to compare the functional, long-term oncological, and cost-effectiveness outcomes of both approaches.

Comparison of clinical efficacy between robotic-laparoscopic excision and traditional laparoscopy for rectal cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery and open surgery are the most commonly consumed surgical techniques in daily living. Considering that in recent years, the situation of choosing laparoscopic surgery and robot-assisted surgery to treat rectal cancer in China is prosperous. Meanwhile, researches lacked in the comparison part between the 2, so we will systematically compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Clinical research literature published before January 2020 in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Science Network, Wan Fang database, Chinese national knowledge infrastructure, and Chinese biomedicine that evaluate the correlation of rectal cancer with Leonardo's robot and traditional laparoscopy, from inception to July 2019. Weighted mean difference and odds ratio were used to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted resection versus conventional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, and the main indicators are operation time, complication rate, conversion rate, blood loss, and length of stay.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

This study will systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, thus providing evidence to the clinical application. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval and participant consent are required, since this study data is based on published literature. The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020172161.

Use of Robotic Technology in the Management of Complex Colorectal Pathology

Use of robotic surgery is increasing in multiple surgical specialties including colorectal. We argue that the improved visualization and better instrumentation outweigh the increased cost and operating room time. However, the indications for its use are not clearly defined. This is especially true in complex pathologies such as rectal cancer and complicated diverticulitis. We explore the limited clinical data on the subject to support or dismiss the use of this currently developing technology.

Robotic Colorectal Surgery

The role of robotics in colon and rectal surgery has been established as an important and effective tool for the surgeon. Its inherent technologies have provided for increased visualization and ease of dissection in the minimally invasive approach to surgery. The value of the robot is apparent in the more challenging aspects of colon and rectal procedures, including the intracorporeal anastomosis for right colectomies and the low pelvic dissection for benign and malignant diseases.

Initial clinical experience of single-incision robotic colorectal surgery with da Vinci SP platform

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, which is challenging due to its restrictions regarding triangulation and retraction. The purpose of this article is to describe the initial experience with single-incision surgery using the da Vinvci Single-Port Platform (dVSP).

METHODS

The medical records of patients with colorectal disease, who underwent single-incision robotic surgery using the dVSP, were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Five patients with appendiceal and colorectal cancer, and two with diverticulitis were enrolled. All procedures were completed using a pure single-incision approach, with an exception for low anterior resection. There were two minor complications. For patients with colorectal cancer, the number of retrieved lymph nodes and status of the resection margin were acceptable, and cosmetic results were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The dVSP is a novel surgical platform that can be used as an alternative surgical modality for colorectal surgery.

Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Although several meta-analyses regarding robot-assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) in patients with rectal cancer are constantly being published, meta-analyses considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still rare. It is therefore necessary to conduct an appropriate meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence for clinical decision-making. Databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were used to collect RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of RP and LP. Article search was performed until August 2019. Data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by two reviewers independently, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using R software. Eight RCTs were included involving 999 patients, 495 of them underwent RP and 504 underwent LP. The results showed that the RP group had a longer operative time (P < 0.01), a lower conversion rate (P = 0.03), a longer distance to the distal margin (DDM) (P = 0.001), and a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.02). No significant differences were found in perioperative mortality, complication rates, PRM, number of harvested lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and time to first bowel movement between the two groups. Current evidence suggests that RP is superior to LP in short-term clinical outcomes, which is similar to LP regarding pathological outcomes and has better DDM outcomes. However, the comparison between RP and LP regarding long-term oncology outcomes still require further multi-center and large RCT samples to confirm our evidences.

Oncologic and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic, Open, and Robotic Approaches for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Weighted Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches have been shown to reduce surgical site complications without compromising oncologic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the rates of successful oncologic resection and postoperative outcomes among laparoscopic, open, and robotic approaches to rectal cancer resection.

DESIGN

This is a multicenter, quasiexperimental cohort study using propensity score weighting.

SETTINGS

Interventions were performed in hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

PATIENTS

Adult patients who underwent rectal cancer resection in 2016 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was a composite variable indicating successful oncologic resection, defined as negative distal and radial margins with at least 12 lymph nodes evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 1028 rectal cancer resections, 206 (20%) were approached laparoscopically, 192 (18.7%) were approached robotically, and 630 (61.3%) were open. After propensity score weighting, there were no significant sociodemographic or preoperative clinical differences among subcohorts. Compared to the laparoscopic approach, open and robotic approaches were associated with a decreased likelihood of successful oncologic resection (ORadj = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.94 and ORadj = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97), and the open approach was associated with an increased likelihood of surgical site complications (ORadj = 2.53; 95% CI, 1.61-3.959). Compared to the laparoscopic approach, the open approach was associated with longer length of stay (6.8 vs 8.6 days, p = 0.002).

LIMITATIONS

This was an observational cohort study using a preexisting clinical data set. Despite adjusted propensity score methodology, unmeasured confounding may contribute to our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Resections that were approached laparoscopically were more likely to achieve oncologic success. Minimally invasive approaches did not lengthen operative times and provided benefits of reduced surgical site complications and decreased postoperative length of stay. Further studies are needed to clarify clinical outcomes and factors that influence the choice of approach. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B70. RESULTADOS ONCOLÓGICOS Y PERIOPERATORIOS DE LOS ABORDAJES LAPAROSCÓPICOS, ABIERTOS Y ROBÓTICOS PARA LA RESECCIÓN DEL CÁNCER RECTAL: UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE MULTICÉNTRICO Y PONDERADO DEL PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIÓN: Se ha demostrado que los enfoques mínimamente invasivos reducen las complicaciones del sitio quirúrgico sin comprometer los resultados oncológicos.El objetivo principal de este estudio es evaluar las tasas de resección oncológica exitosa y los resultados postoperatorios entre los abordajes laparoscópico, abierto y robótico para la resección del cáncer rectal.Este es un estudio de cohorte cuasi-experimental multicéntrico que utiliza la ponderación de puntaje de propensión.Las intervenciones se realizaron en hospitales que participan en el Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.Se incluyeron pacientes adultos que se sometieron a resección de cáncer rectal en 2016.El resultado primario fue una variable compuesta que indicaba una resección oncológica exitosa, definida como márgenes negativos distales y radiales con al menos 12 ganglios linfáticos evaluados.Entre 1,028 resecciones de cáncer rectal, 206 (20%) fueron abordadas por vía laparoscópica, 192 (18.7%) robóticamente y 630 (61.3%) abiertas. Después de ponderar el puntaje de propensión, no hubo diferencias sociodemográficas o clínicas preoperatorias significativas entre las subcohortes. En comparación con el abordaje laparoscópico, los abordajes abiertos y robóticos se asociaron con una menor probabilidad de resección oncológica exitosa (ORadj = 0.64; IC 95%, 0.43-0.94 y ORadj = 0.60; IC 95%, 0.37-0.97), y el abordaje abierto se asoció con una mayor probabilidad de complicaciones del sitio quirúrgico (ORadj = 2.53; IC 95%, 1.61-3.959). En comparación con el abordaje laparoscópico, el abordaje abierto se asoció con una estadía más prolongada (6.8 frente a 8.6 días, p = 0.002).Este fue un estudio de cohorte observacional que utilizó un conjunto de datos clínicos preexistentes. A pesar de la metodología de puntuación de propensión ajustada, la confusión no medida puede contribuir a nuestros hallazgos.Las resecciones que se abordaron por vía laparoscópica tuvieron más probabilidades de lograr el éxito oncológico. Los enfoques mínimamente invasivos no alargaron los tiempos quirúrgicos y proporcionaron beneficios de la reducción de las complicaciones del sitio quirúrgico y la disminución de la duración de la estadía postoperatoria. Se necesitan más estudios para aclarar los resultados clínicos y los factores que influyen en la elección del enfoque. Vea video resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B70.

Robotic simultaneous resection for colorectal liver metastasis: feasibility for all types of liver resection

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach is increasingly being utilized in simultaneous colorectal and liver resection (SCLR) for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. However, this approach is technically challenging and hence has not been widely adopted. Robotic surgical systems could potentially overcome this problem. We aim to describe the feasibility and outcomes of robotic SCLR for colorectal carcinoma with liver metastasis.

METHODS

The medical records of 12 patients who underwent robotic SCLR for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis between January 2008 and September 2018 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean age was 59 years (range, 37-77 years). The liver resections were comprised of two right hepatectomies, one left hepatectomy, one left lateral sectionectomy, one segmentectomy of S3 and wedge resection (segment 7), one caudate lobectomy, one associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and five wedge resections involving segments 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. The colorectal procedures involved seven low-anterior resections, two anterior resections, two right hemicolectomies, and one left hemicolectomy. The mean operative time was 449 min (range, 135-682 min) with a mean estimated blood loss of 274.3 mL (range, 40-780 mL). The mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (range, 5-28 days). No patients required conversion to laparotomy. Liver resection-related complications were two liver abscesses (Clavien-Dindo classification, one grade II and one grade III) and one case of ascites (grade I), whereas colorectal resection-related complications included one anastomosis leak (grade III) and one superficial wound infection (grade II). There were no deaths reported within 30 days of the procedure. With a mean follow-up duration of 31.5 ± 26.1 months, the overall survival and disease-free survival values were 75.2 and 47.1 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SCLR for colorectal neoplasm with liver metastasis can be performed safely even in cases requiring major liver resections, especially in a specialized center with a well-trained team.

How robotics is changing and will change the field of colorectal surgery

During the last decade there has been a significant upward trend in colon and rectal minimally invasive surgery which can be attributed largely to the acceptance of robotic surgery platforms such as the da Vinci^® robotic system. The fourth generation da Vinci^® system, introduced in 2014, includes integrated table motion, intelligent laser targeted docking and more sophisticated instrumentation and imaging. These developments have enabled more surgeons to efficiently and safely perform multi-quadrant operations. Firefly^® technology allows assessment of colon perfusion and identification of ureters, and has shown potential in detecting occult recurrence or metastasis using molecular-labelled tumor markers. Wristed instrumentation has increased the technical ease of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) for many surgeons, leading to more common use of ICA during right colectomy. Advanced imaging has shown potential to decrease the incidence of presacral nerve injury and improve urogenital outcomes after pelvic surgery, as has been the case in robotic urologic procedures. Finally, the robotic platform lends itself to surgical simulation for surgical trainees, as a pre-operative tool for mock operations and as an ongoing assessment tool for established colorectal surgeons. Given these advantages, surgeons should anticipate continued and increased utilization of this beneficial technology.

Oncological Outcomes and Quality of Life After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Surgery for rectal cancer has been completely revolutionized thanks to the adoption of new technologies and up-to-date surgical procedures that have been applied to the traditional milestone represented by Total Mesorectal Excision (TME).

The multimodal and multidisciplinary approach, with new technologies increased the patients’ life expectancies; nevertheless, they have placed the surgeon in front of newer issues, represented by both oncological outcomes and the patients’ need of a less destructive surgery and improved quality of life.

In this review we will go through laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME surgery, to show how the correct choice of the most appropriate technique, together with a deep knowledge of oncological principles and pelvic anatomy, is crucial to pursue an optimal cancer treatment. Novel technologies might also help to decrease the patients’ fear of surgery and address important issues such as cosmesis and improved preservation of postoperative functionality.