Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of short-term outcomes

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence of superiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal resections remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques in high-risk patients undergoing resections for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library databases from inception until December 2024. Randomised and non-randomised studies reporting outcomes of robotic-assisted or laparoscopic resections in the following high-risk categories were included: obesity, male gender, the elderly, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and previous abdominal surgery. Comparative meta-analyses for all sufficiently reported outcomes were completed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools for non-randomised and randomised studies, respectively.

RESULTS

48 studies, including a total of 34,846 patients were eligible for inclusion and 32 studies were utilised in the comparative meta-analyses. Conversion to open rates were significantly lower for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity, male patients and patients with low rectal tumours (obese OR 0.41 [CI 0.32-0.51], p < 0.00001); male gender (OR 0.28 [CI 0.22-0.34], p < 0.00001); low tumours OR 0.10 [CI 0.02-0.58], p = 0.01). Length of stay was significantly reduced for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity (SMD 0.25 [CI - 0.41 to - 0.09], p = 0.002). Operative time was significantly longer in all subgroups (obesity SMD 0.57 [CI 0.31-0.83], p < 0.0001; male gender SMD 0.77 [CI 0.17-1.37], p = 0.01; elderly SMD 0.50 [CI 0.18-0.83], p = 0.002; low rectal tumours SMD 0.48 [CI 0.12-0.84], p = 0.008; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy SMD 0.72 [CI 0.34-1.09], p = 0.0002; previous surgery SMD 1.55 [CI 0.05-3.06], p = 0.04). When calculable, blood loss, length of stay, complication rate and lymph node yield were comparable in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides further evidence of non-inferiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer and demonstrates conversion rates are superior in specific, technically challenging operations.

Comparison of efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To some extent, the robotic technique does offer certain benefits in rectal cancer surgery than laparoscopic one, while remains a topic of ongoing debate for rectal cancer patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT).

METHODS

Potential studies published until January 2024 were obtained from Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed. Dichotomous and continuous variables were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs, respectively. A random effects model was used if the I2 statistic >50%; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 1079 patients were analysed. The robotic-assisted group had an 0.4 cm shorter distance from the anal verge (95% CI: -0.680 to -0.114, P =0.006) and 1.94 times higher complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rate (OR=1.936, 95% CI: 1.061-3.532, P =0.031). However, the operation time in the robotic-assisted group was 54 min longer (95% CI: 20.489-87.037, P =0.002) than the laparoscopic group. In addition, the robotic-assisted group had a lower open conversion rate (OR=0.324, 95% CI: 0.129-0.816, P =0.017) and a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD=-1.127, 95% CI: -2.071 to -0.184, P =0.019).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery offered several advantages over laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer following NCRT in terms of resection of lower tumours with improved TME completeness, lower open conversion rate, and shorter hospital stay, despite the longer operative time.

Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis

Background

The effect of robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy is still controversial, and a comprehensive search and analysis of the current relevant evidence is necessary. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS).

Methods

Up to August 23, 2023, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) was used to calculate the effect sizes using RevMan 5.3.

Results

A total of 12 studies reporting on 11,686 participants were included. Compared with LS, RS increased the operative time (MD 35.16 min; 95% CI: 16.24, 54.07), but it did significantly reduce the risk of the conversion to open surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40, 0.53) and improved the TME incomplete rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93). Moreover, there were no difference in total postoperative complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84, 1.52), circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63, 1.27), distal margin positive (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29, 1.22), blood loss (MD -11.57 ml; 95% CI: -39.09, 15.94), length of hospital stay (MD -0.08 days; 95% CI: -1.26, 1.10), mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.21), lymph node harvested (MD 0.69.; 95% CI: -0.43, 1.82), and the time of first flatus (MD -0.47 days; 95% CI: -1.19, 0.25) between the two groups.

Conclusions

RS was associated with superiority over LS in reducing the risk of the conversion to open surgery and improving TME incomplete rate, which suggested that RS could be an effective method for treating rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=460084, PROSPERO (CRD42023460084).

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.

Robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving resections have similar peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes in female patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare perioperative, long-term oncological, and anorectal functional outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision in female patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. Sixty-eight cases (L-TME, n = 34; R-TME, n = 34) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2014-January 2019). Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications, pathology results, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics did not differ between the groups. Mean operating time was longer in R-TME (165.50 ± 95.50 vs. 124.50 ± 82.60 min, p < 0.001). There was no conversion to open surgery in both groups. Mesorectal integrity was complete in both groups (100%). Length of distal and circumferential resection margins (CRM) did not differ between groups. CRM involvement was observed in 1 (2.8%) and 1 (2.8%) in L-TME and R-TME patients, respectively. Incidence of anastomotic leakage was 5.8% (n = 2) in L-TME and 8.8% (n = 3) in R-TME, respectively. Mean length of follow-up was 62.5 (36-102) months for R-TME and 63 (36-103) months for L-TME. Five-year overall survival rates were 92.8% in L-TME and 89.6% in R-TME. Disease-free survival rates were 87.5% in L-TME and 89.6% in R-TME. Local recurrence rates were 3.0% for both groups. Mean Wexner score for L-TME and R-TME patients was: 9.42 ± 8.23 and 9.22 ± 3.64 (p = 0.685), respectively. Daily stool frequency was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) have similar perioperative, oncological, and anorectal functional results in female patients with rectal cancer. The robotic approach for rectal cancers in female patients could be not as critical as for male patients.

Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Scarce research has reported the comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in mid-low rectal cancer. Therefore, this meta-analysis is aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two surgical approaches.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was performed for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The outcomes of interest acquired from eight articles included three aspects: intraoperative conditions, postoperative status of patients, and complications. All data (robotic = 1350 patients, laparoscopic = 1330 patients) enrolled were analyzed using Rev Man 5.4.

RESULTS

Compared to the laparoscopic group, the robotic group indicated a noticeable superiority in estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), number of lymph nodes dissected (P = 0.004), time to first flatus (P = 0.001), time to first fluid diet (P = 0.001), hospital stay (P < 0.0001), conversion (P = 0.009), and urinary retention (P = 0.0006), but devoted much more operation time (P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was associated with superiority over laparoscopic surgery in increasing surgical safety, accelerating postoperative recovery, and reducing complications, which suggested that robotic surgery could be a safe and effective method for treating mid-low rectal cancer.

Robotic male and laparoscopic female sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer share similar specimen quality, complication rates and long-term oncological outcomes

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision in female patients (F-Lap-TME) and robotic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision in male patients (M-Rob-TME) with mid-low rectal cancer (RC). A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. 170 cases (F-Lap-TME: 60 patients; M-Rob-TME: 110 patients) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2011-January 2020). Clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Operating time was longer in M-Rob-TME than in F-Lap-TME group (185.3 ± 28.4 vs 124.5 ± 35.8 min, p < 0.001). There was no conversion to open surgery in both groups. Quality of mesorectum was complete/near-complete in 58 (96.7%) and 107 (97.3%) patients of F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME (p = 0.508), respectively. Circumferential radial margin involvement was observed in 2 (3.3%) and 3 (2.9%) in F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME patients (p = 0.210), respectively. Median length of follow-up was 62 (24-108) months in the F-Lap-TME and 64 (24-108) months in the M-Rob-TME group. Five-year overall survival rates were 90.5% in the F-Lap-TME and 89.6% in the M-Rob-TME groups (p = 0.120). Disease-free survival rates in F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME groups were 87.5% and 86.5% (p = 0.145), respectively. Local recurrence rates were 5% (n = 3) and 5.5% (n = 6) (p = 0.210), in the F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME groups, respectively. The robotic technique can potentially overcome some technical challenges related to the pelvic anatomical difference between sex compared to laparoscopy. Laparoscopic and robotic approach, respectively in female and male patients provide similar surgical specimen quality, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncological results.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

Is robotic da Vinci Xi® superior to the da Vinci Si® for sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision? Outcomes in 150 mid-low rectal cancer patients

The aim of this study was to determine the superiority between the robotic da Vinci Si® (Si group) and da Vinci Xi® (Xi group) generation in patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Between December 2011 and December 2017, 88 patients with mid-low rectal cancer were operated on using the Si robotic system, from January 2018 to May 2021, 62 more patients with mid-low rectal cancer were operated on using the Xi robotic system. Perioperative and postoperative short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox-regression analysis were performed to determine factors affecting operating time. A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was also performed to determine the learning curve of the primary surgeon. All patients underwent sphincter saving total mesorectal excision (TME). The overall operating time was significantly shorter in the Xi group (181.3 ± 31.8 min in Si group vs 123.6 ± 25.7 min in the Xi group, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of conversion rates, mean hospital stays, complications and histopathologic data. CUSUM analysis show completion of learning curve in 44th case of Si group. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated that the learning curve of the primary surgeon (p < 0.001) and the type of robotic system (Xi) are only two factors associated with operating time (OR, 95% CI p; 3.656, 0.665-9.339, p < 0.001). Our study found that the robotic da Vinci Xi systems provide significantly shorter operating time comparing with Si systems, when performing sphincter-preserving TME in mid-low rectal cancer patients. Surgical system (da Vinci Xi) and primary surgeon learning curve are two independent risk factors which associated shortened operating time. Postoperative complication rates and histopathologic outcomes are similar in both groups.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy as these remains unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively recruited eligible patients with rectal cancer undergoing robotic or laparoscopic surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We compared the surgical outcomes between patients undergoing either robotic surgery or laparoscopic surgery was based on the propensity-score matching analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were recruited, including 76 who underwent robotic surgery and 95 who underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in clinical and pathological characteristics between the groups after propensity-score matching (56 matched pairs). Longer operation times (324.964 ± 83.435 vs. 246.232 ± 111.324 min, p < 0.001) and more blood loss (187.679 ± 176.615 vs. 98.214 ± 107.011, p < 0.001) were observed in the robotic group. The major complication rates were similar between the treatment groups after propensity matching (p = 0.086). There were no significant differences in disease-free survival rates (p = 0.205) and overall survival rates (p = 0.837) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is associated with similar technical safety and oncologic efficacy compared to laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; it is an acceptable option for patients requiring minimally invasive surgery. Nevertheless, the longer operation times and greater blood loss seen in the present study are a stark reminder that the convenience and surgical precision, on which the marketing of robotic surgery is rooted, are yet to be proven and require further investigation.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Sphincter-Saving Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision Provides Better Mesorectal Specimen and Good Oncological Local Control Compared with Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in Male Patients with Mid-Low Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision is a technically challenging procedure, and there are limitations in conventional laparoscopy. A surgical robotic system may help to overcome some of the limitations. The aim of our study was to compare long-term oncological outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. One-hundred-three robotic and 84 laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excisions were performed by a single surgeon between January 2011 and January 2020. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications, pathology results, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The patients' characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (180 minutes versus 140 minutes, p=0.033). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the robotic group was complete in 96 (93.20%), near complete in four (3.88%) and incomplete in three (2.91%) patients. In the laparoscopic group, grading was complete in 37 (44.04%), near complete in 40 (47.61%) and incomplete in seven (8.33%) patients (p=0.03). The median length of follow up was 48 (9-102) months in the robotic, and 75.6 (11-113) months in the laparoscopic group. Overall, five-year survival was 87% in the robotic and 85.3% in the laparoscopic groups. Local recurrence rates were 3.8% and 7.14%, respectively, in the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Sphincter-saving robotic total mesorectal excision is a safe and feasible tool, which provides good mesorectal integrity and better local control in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer.

Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies

Background

RCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model.

Results

Fifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) –1.11 (95 per cent c.i. –1.86 to –0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD –0.28 (–1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively).

Conclusion

Results of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.

Robotic rectal surgery: Outcomes of the first 102 totally robotic cases handled using the single-docking technique in a reference institution

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Rectal cancer is often surgically treated, but it is still associated with morbidity rates. Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly being used to reduce complications, and the use of such techniques can be found in the literature. This study aims to report our experience in a reference oncology center.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on a prospective database of patients who underwent robotic surgery for rectal cancer using the single-docking technique from September 2014 to April 2018. Clinical and surgical variables, as well as morbidity and mortality rates, were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and two patients underwent robotic surgery. Intraoperative complications occurred in six patients (4.9%), and postoperative complications in 24 patients (23.5%), of which anastomotic fistula represented 3.9%. The conversion rate was 1.96%. Two cases (1.9%) faced death within 30 days. The median length of hospitalization was 3 days. The median number of lymph nodes dissected was 15. Clinical and surgical data were correlated with postoperative complications, and no statistically significant differences were found.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is a safe and feasible approach to manage rectal cancer. The method presents satisfactory results with regard to the rate of operative complications, conversion rate, oncologic outcomes, and length of hospitalization.

Urological and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

This systematic review sought to compare the urogenital functions after laparoscopic (LAP) and robotic (ROB) surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies (n = 2709 for ROB, n = 2720 for LAP) were included. There was a lower risk of 30-day urinary retention in the ROB group (risk ratios 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.99), but the long-term risk was comparable (p = 0.460). Meta-regression showed a small, positive relationship between age and risk of 30-day urinary retention in both the ROB (p = 0.034) and LAP groups (p = 0.004). The International Prostate Symptom Score was better in the ROB group at 3 months (mean difference [MD] -1.58, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.05). The International Index of Erectile Function score was better in the ROB group at 6 months (MD 4.06, 95% CI 2.38 - 5.74).

CONCLUSION

While robotics may improve urogenital function after rectal surgery, the quality of evidence is low based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

A systematic review of the true benefit of robotic surgery: Ergonomics

BACKGROUND

Ergonomics, as defined by the optimization of one's physical environment to enhance work performance, is an important consideration in surgery. While there have been reviews on the ergonomics of laparoscopy, this has not been the case for robotic surgery despite the rising number of publications.

METHODS

This study was performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was performed on main databases to identify relevant articles.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were included, comprising 3074 participants. Studies employing objective measurement tools showed that robotics conferred superior ergonomic benefits and reduced work load compared to laparoscopy, for both surgeons and trainees. Survey studies also demonstrated that self-reported discomfort was lower in robotic procedures compared to laparoscopy and open surgery. Compared to other subspecialities, gynecological procedures seem to be associated with greater surgeon-reported strain.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is ergonomically superior to open and laparoscopic surgery. However, rates of physical strain remain significant and should be addressed by formal ergonomic training and adequate console familiarization.

Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of long-term outcomes

The aim of our study was to compare long term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer (RC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database, and we analyzed 14 robotic and 65 laparoscopic sphincter-saving TME (R-TME and L-TME, respectively) performed by one surgeon between 2005 and 2013. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications and pathology results were compared between the two groups. The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the R-TME than in the L-TME group (182 min versus 140 min). Only two conversions occurred in the L-TME group. No difference was found between groups regarding perioperative recovery and postoperative complication rates. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the RTME than in the L-TME group (32 versus 23, p = 0.008). The median circumferential margin (CRM) was 10 mm in the R-TME group, 6.5 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.047. The median distal resection margin (DRM) was 27.5 mm in the R-TME, 15 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.014). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the R-TME group was complete in all patients. In the L-TME group, grading was complete in 52 (80%) and incomplete in 13 (20%) cases (p = 0.109). Median follow-up 87 months (1-152). Whereas local recurrence was seen in eight cases (10.12%) and distant metastasis was seen in 18 cases (22.7%). Overall, 5 years survival was 83.3% in R-TME, 75% in L-TME groups. R-TME is a safe and feasible procedure that facilitates performing of TME in male patients with mid to low RC after NCRT.

Rate of conversion to an open procedure is reduced in patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery: A single-institution experience

Background

Robotic-assisted surgery is becoming increasingly used in colorectal operations. It has many advantages over laparoscopic surgery including three-dimensional viewing, motion scaling, improved dexterity and ergonomics as well as increased precision. However, there are also disadvantages to robotic surgery such as lack of tactile feedback, cost as well as limitations on multi-quadrant surgeries. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of conversion to an open surgery in patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery for neoplastic and dysplastic disease from 2009 to 2016 were identified and examined retrospectively. The statistical software SAS, manufactured by SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina. Continuous variables were analysed using analysis of variance test. Chi-square test was used to analyse categorical variables. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Two hundred and thirty-five patients were identified that underwent minimally invasive colorectal surgery. One hundred and sixty-four underwent laparoscopic resection and 71 underwent robotic-assisted resection. There was no statistical difference in gender or race between the two groups (both P > 0.05). Patients that underwent robotic-assisted resection were slightly younger than patients that underwent laparoscopic resection (61.6 years vs. 65.6 years; P= 0.02). When examining conversion to an open procedure, patients that underwent robotic-assisted resection had a significantly lower chance of conversion than did the patients undergoing a laparoscopic approach (11.27% vs. 29.78%; P= 0.0018).

Conclusion

Conversion rates from a minimally invasive procedure to an open procedure appear to be lower with robotic-assisted surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery.

The long-term oncological outcomes of the 140 robotic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single surgeon experience

Robotic surgery became more popularly in the colorectal surgical field. The aim of the study was to evaluate of the oncological outcomes which patients who underwent the robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. A series of 140 consecutive patients who underwent robotic rectal surgery between January 2012 and June 2019 was analyzed retrospectively in terms of demographics, pathological data, and surgical and oncological outcomes. There were 104 (74.28%) male and 36 (25.71%) female patients. The tumor was located in the lower rectum in 84 (60%) cases, in the mid rectum in 38 (27.14%) cases, and in the upper rectum in 18 (12.85%) cases. Ninety-eight (70%) of the patients has received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. All the patients underwent robotic sphincter-preserving surgery, 101 (72.14%) patients low-anterior resection, and 39 (27.85%) patients underwent intersphincteric resection with colo-anal anastomosis. There were no conversions. The circumferential resection margin was positive in five (3.57%) patients. The median distal resection margin of the operative specimen was 3.2 (0.2-7) cm. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 22 (16-42). TME quality in the in our study was rated as complete in 88.57% (n124) of patients, nearly complete in 7.14% (n10) of patients; and 4.28% (n6) of incomplete. The median hospital stay was 3.5 (3-12) days. In-hospital and 1-month mortality was zero. The median length of follow-up was 40 (2-80) months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 92.78%. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 90%. Locally recurrence and distance recurrence rate was 3.57% (n5/140) and 2.85% (n4/140), respectively. Robotic rectal cancer surgery has a good oncological outcomes and feasible tool in the field of the rectal surgery, but required a steep learning curve.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Systemic review and network meta-analysis comparing minimal surgical techniques for rectal cancer: quality of total mesorectum excision, pathological, surgical, and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimal invasive surgery has revolutionized recovery in rectal cancer patients. However, there has been debate on its effect on quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and oncological outcomes. This network meta-analysis compares laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and transanal TMEs. This study shows that All three surgical techniques are comparable across TME quality and oncological outcomes. Ultimately, good outcomes are based on each individual surgeon choosing an approach based on their expertise.

Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

TME has revolutionized the surgical management of rectal cancer, and since the introduction of robotic TME (RTME), many reports have shown the feasibility and the safety of this approach. However, concerns persist regarding the advantages of robotic in surgery for the completeness of TME. The aim of this review is to compare robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer, focusing on the completeness of TME.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases for all available studies comparing RTME versus conventional laparoscopic LTME with declared grade of mesorectum excision. Data regarding sample size, clinical and demographic characteristics, number of complete, nearly complete, and incomplete TME were extracted. Primary outcome was the number of complete TME in robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Secondary outcomes were the numbers of nearly complete and incomplete TME in robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were included in the final analysis. Complete TME was reported by all authors, involving 1510 procedures, showing a significant difference in favor of robotic surgery (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.08-3.10, p = 0.03). Nearly complete and incomplete TME showed no significant difference between the procedures. Meta-regression analysis showed that none of patients' and tumors' characteristics significantly impacted on complete TME.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underline that the robotic approach to rectal resection is the better way to obtain a complete TME. However, it is mandatory that randomized clinical trials should be performed to assess definitively if robotic minimally invasive surgery is better than a laparoscopic resection.

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

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

Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial

AIM

To compare outcomes in patients undergoing rectal resection by robotic total meso-rectal excision (RTME) vs laparoscopic total meso-rectal excision (LTME).

METHODS

Standard medical electronic databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus were searched to find relevant articles. The data retrieved from all types of included published comparative trials in patients undergoing RTME vs LTME was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes were evaluated to assess the effectiveness of both techniques of TME. The summated outcome of continuous variables was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and dichotomous data was presented in odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

One RCT (ROLARR trial) and 27 other comparative studies reporting the non-oncological and oncological outcomes following RTME vs LTME were included in this review. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the RTME was associated with longer operation time (SMD, 0.46; 95%CI: 0.25, 0.67; z = 4.33; P = 0.0001), early passage of first flatus (P = 0.002), lower risk of conversion (P = 0.00001) and shorter hospitalization (P = 0.01). The statistical equivalence was seen between RTME and LTME for non-oncological variables like blood loss, morbidity, mortality and re-operation risk. The oncological variables such as recurrence (P = 0.96), number of harvested nodes (P = 0.49) and positive circumferential resection margin risk (P = 0.53) were also comparable in both groups. The length of distal resection margins was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RTME is feasible and oncologically safe but failed to demonstrate any superiority over LTME for many surgical outcomes except early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion and shorter hospitalization.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and the effect of learning curve

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is safe and can accelerate recovery without compromising oncological outcomes. However, such a surgery is technically demanding, limiting its application in nonspecialized centers. The operational features of a robotic system may facilitate overcoming this limitation. Studies have reported the potential advantages of robotic surgery. However, only a few of them have featured the application of this surgery in patients with advanced rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT).From January 2012 to April 2015, after undergoing nCRT, 40 patients with mid or low rectal cancer were operated using the robotic approach at our institution. Another 38 patients who were operated using the conventional laparoscopic approach were matched to patients in the robotic group by sex, age, the body mass index, and procedure. All operations were performed by a single surgical team. The clinicopathological characteristics and short-term outcomes of these patients were compared. To assess the effect of the learning curve on the outcomes, patients in the robotic group were further subdivided into 2 groups according to the sequential order of their procedures, with an equal number of patients in each group. Their outcome measures were compared.The robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable with regard to pretreatment characteristics, rectal resection type, and pathological examination result. After undergoing nCRT, more patients in the robotic group exhibited clinically advanced diseases. The complication rate was similar between the 2 groups. The operation time and the time to the resumption of a soft diet were significantly prolonged in the robotic group. Further analysis revealed that the difference was mainly observed in the first robotic group. No significant difference was observed between the second robotic and laparoscopic groups.Although the robotic approach may offer potential advantages for rectal surgery, comparable short-term outcomes may be achieved when laparoscopic surgery is performed by experienced surgeons. However, our results suggested a shorter learning curve for robotic surgery for rectal cancer, even in patients who exhibited more advanced disease after undergoing nCRT.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to July 2016 to identify case-controlled studies that compared robotic TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME) for rectal cancer. GRADE was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 17 case-control studies (3601 participants: 1726 underwent RTME and 1875 LTME for rectal cancer) that compared RTME with LTME for rectal cancer. We found no statistically significant differences between techniques for local recurrence [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, P = .216] and overall survival at 3 years (OR = 0.71, P = 1.140), complications (OR = 1.02, P = .883), positive circumferential resection margin (PCRM) (OR = 0.80, P = .256), the first passing flatus [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.11, P = .130], reoperation (OR = 0.66, P = .080), estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = -12.45, P = .500), and length of stay in hospital (LOS) (WMD = -0.69, P = .089). Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.35, P < .001), urinary retention (OR = 0.41, P = .025), and longer operative time (WMD = 57.43, P < .001). The overall quality of evidence was poor in all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RTME in patients with rectal cancer was associated with a lower rate of conversion and less incidence of urinary retention. Generally, operative time in RTME was significantly longer than in LTME. The long-term oncological and function outcomes of RTME seem to be equivalent with LTME. Therefore, analysis of current studies to date did not indicate a major benefit of RTME over LTME.

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

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

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

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Update in 2015

During the last decade, robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly gained acceptance among colorectal surgeons worldwide, with well-established safety and feasibility. The lower conversion rate and better surgical specimen quality of robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery potentially improves survival. Earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision is another favorable outcome. Long-term survival data are sparse with no evidence that robotic surgery offers major benefits in oncological outcomes. Although initial reports are promising, more rigorous scientific evaluation in multicenter, randomized clinical trials should be performed to definitely determine the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery.