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

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted sugery for rectal cancer after neo-adjuvant therapy: a large volume single center experience

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery after receiving neo-adjuvant therapy. There is a lack of clarity on this topic, necessitating a comprehensive comparison.

METHOD

Between January 2017 and December 2021, consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection at a major public medical center were enrolled. All participants received neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) before surgery. The primary objective of this study was to assess the sphincter preservation rate and the rate of conversion to open surgery, using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Secondary endpoints included 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), 5-year overall survival (OS), short-term postoperative complications, long-term oncological prognosis, and the occurrence of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).

RESULT

A total of 575 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer participated in the cohort study, with 183 individuals undergoing robotic surgery and 392 undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Patients in the robotic group tended to be younger and had higher ypT, cT, and cN stages, lower tumor locations, and higher rates of extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) and circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity. PSM resulted in 183 patients in the robotic group and 187 in the laparoscopic group. We found a higher sphincter preservation rate in robotic group compared with laparoscopic group (92.9% vs. 86.1%, P = 0.033), with no significant difference in conversion to open surgery(P > 0.05). The robotic group had a higher incidence of postoperative chylous ascites (4.9% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.029) and potentially lower sepsis occurrence (0% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.085). No significant differences were observed in long-term oncological prognosis or 5-year survival rates (P > 0.05). The median survival time for each group was 34 months. Subgroup analysis of 76 rectal cancer patients who underwent intersphincteric resection (ISR) surgery indicated that those who selected robotic surgery had higher cN and cT stages. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed in short-term and long-term clinical outcomes, LARS, OS time, and DFS time between the two surgical modalities. The primary outcomes of interest, specifically the rate of sphincter preservation and the rate of conversion to open laparotomy, showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer, following preoperative nCRT, demonstrates comparable technical safety and oncological outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Further comprehensive studies are needed to to confirm the potential advantages of robotic surgical interventions.

Robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study on surgical safety and functional outcomes

BACKGROUNDS

This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and functional outcomes of DA Vinci (Xi)-assisted surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer, focusing on oncologic cure and functional preservation.

METHODS

Between December 2020 and June 2021, 102 patients with middle and low rectal cancer (tumour lower margin ≤10 cm) were enrolled at the affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University. Participants were divided into two groups: robot-assisted (n = 51) and laparoscopy-assisted (n = 51). Each group underwent a radical resection using their assigned method. Clinical and functional outcomes were analysed post-surgery.

RESULTS

Preoperative data did not differ significantly between groups (P > 0.05). All surgeries were successfully completed without conversion to open surgery. The robotic group experienced significantly less intraoperative blood loss (55.2 ± 29.8 mL vs. 109.5 ± 58.5 mL) and faster recovery in gastrointestinal function (35.1 ± 9.4 h vs. 40.7 ± 1.9 h), diet recovery (2.1 ± 0.8 days vs. 2.9 ± 0.4 days), and catheter removal (2.9 ± 2.7 days vs. 5.3 ± 2.1 days). The robotic group also dissected more lymph nodes (23 ± 6 vs. 15 ± 4). However, they had longer operative times (239.8 ± 29.6 min vs. 141.1 ± 18.5 min) and higher hospital costs. Satisfaction levels regarding defecation, voiding, and sexual functions were notably higher in the robotic group.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences in surgical safety or immediate postoperative outcomes were observed between robotic and laparoscopic approaches. However, robotic surgery demonstrated superior lymph node dissection, anal function preservation, and gastrointestinal recovery, enhancing overall functional outcomes.

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.

Comparison of Renal Tubular Damage with Kidney Injury Molecule-1 in Open and Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Background and Objectives: Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in men and women. With advancements in technology, minimally invasive treatment options have become increasingly prominent in colorectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to compare the increased intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery with open procedures using kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) secreted from renal tubules. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 46 patients diagnosed with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic and open surgical procedures at our clinic. The patients were prospectively randomized into five groups: 10 laparoscopic right hemicolectomies (Group 1), 8 open right hemicolectomies (Group 2), 8 laparoscopic anterior resections (LARs) (Group 3), 11 open anterior resections (Group 4), and 9 laparoscopic low anterior resections (Group 5). Urine samples were collected from the patients preoperatively, postoperatively at the 4th hour, and postoperatively on the 14th day, and the urine KIM-1 levels and urine creatinine (Cr) values were measured. The urine KIM-1/Cr ratios were subsequently calculated. Results: The urinary KIM-1/Cr levels increased at the 4th postoperative hour after the open and laparoscopic procedures. On postoperative day 14, the urinary KIM-1/Cr levels were lower than those in the preoperative period in all groups, except the LAR group. Conclusions: Our study shown that the average pressure in laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery did not have a long-term impact on kidney injury in comparison to open colon and rectal surgery.

Comparing total mesorectal excision with partial mesorectal excision for proximal rectal cancer: evaluating postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes

The treatment role of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) in proximal rectal cancers (PRC) is still debated. Partial Mesorectal Excision (PME) can reduce morbidity in PRC patients. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes between the two groups. A total of 157 PRC patients were enrolled in this study (114 performed with PME and 43 with TME). The two groups were compared in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. The overall postoperative complications rate was higher in TME group (18.4% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.05). The incidence of diverting ileostomy was also significantly higher in TME group (86.0% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.001). Overall survival rates for 3, 5, and 7 years in PME and TME group accordingly were: 94.6%, 89.3%, 81.5% and 93.2%, 87.6%, 78.4% (p = 0.324). Disease-free survival rates for 3, 5, and 7 years in PME and TME group were: 90.2%, 84.5%, 78.6% and 88.7%, 81.2%, 75.3% (p = 0.297), respectively. Local recurrence rates for 3, 5, and 7 years in PME and TME group were: 2.6%, 6.1%, 8.8% and 4.6%, 9.3%, 11.2% (p = 0.061), respectively. PME is feasible and can be safely performed in PRC patients with favorable oncological outcomes. TME is associated with increasing risk of surgical complications and requires a two-step surgery for stoma takedown.

Post recurrence survival in early versus late period and its prognostic factors in rectal cancer patients

To identify factors associated with post-recurrence survival (PRS), we examined our institutional recurrence patterns following definitive resection for rectal cancer. We reviewed all patients with rectal cancer diagnosed at three hospitals in the east of Iran from 2011 to 2020. The optimal cut-off value was determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine early recurrence. The effect of recurrence time was evaluated on PRS. 326 eligible patients with a mean ± SD age of 56 ± 12.8 years were included in this study. In a median (IQR: Inter-quartile range) follow-up time of 76 (62.2) months, 106 (32.5%) patients experienced at least any recurrence (locoregional or distant metastasis) following primary resection. The median (IQR) time from initial surgery to recurrence was 29.5 (31.2) months. Based on ROC analysis, early recurrence was specified at ≤ 29 months. However, for the patients who experienced only locoregional recurrence, 33 months was the cut-off to define early recurrence. Recurrence time and recurrence management were both significant variables on PRS. Moreover, TNM staging was significantly associated with early recurrence (P = 0.003). In this research, recurrence time, recurrence management and TNM staging were found to be correlated with PRS.

Perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a retrospective study of 672 patients

Although there's growing information about the long-term oncological effects of robotic surgery for rectal cancer, the procedure is still relatively new. This study aimed to assess the long-term oncological results of total mesorectal excision (TME) performed laparoscopically versus robotically in the setting of rectal cancer. Restrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. A total of 489 laparoscopic (L-TME) and 183 robotic total mesorectal excisions (R-TME) were carried out by a single surgeon between 2013 and 2023. The groups were compared in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. In the R-TME and L-TME groups, male sex predominated (75.4% and 57.3%, respectively), although the robotic group was significantly greater (p = 0.008). There was no conversion in R-TME group, whereas three (0.6%) converted to open surgery in L-TME group. The R-TME group had a statistically significant higher number of distal rectal tumors (85%) compared to the L-TME group (54.6%). Only three (1.7%) patients in the R-TME group received abdomineperineal resection (APR); in contrast, 25 (5%) patients in the L-TME group received APR (p < 0.001). For R-TME, the mean follow-up was 70.7 months (range 18-138) and for L-TME, it was 60 months (range 14-140). Frequency of completed mesorectum was significantly greater in R-TME group (98.9% vs 94.2%, p < 0.001). The 5 year overall survival rates for R-TME and L-TME groups were 89.6% and 88.7%, respectively. The 5 year disease-free survival for R-TME and L-TME groups were 84.1% and 81.1%, respectively. The local recurrences rates were 7.6% and 6.3%, respectively in R-TME and L-TME groups (p = 0.274). R-TME is characterized by no conversion and improved mesorectal integrity. R-TME had longer operation time. The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between groups.

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.

Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Could Harvest More Lateral Pelvic Lymph Nodes over Laparoscopic Approach for Mid-to-Low Rectal Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a technically demanding procedure. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic LPNDs. This multi-institutional retrospective study included 108 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic total mesorectal excision with LPND for locally advanced rectal cancer. There were 74 patients in the laparoscopic and 34 in the robotic groups. The median operation time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (353 vs. 275 min, p < 0.001). No patients underwent conversion to open surgery in either group. Pathological LPN metastases were observed in 24 and 8 patients in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.347). Although the number of harvested mesorectal lymph nodes was similar (15.5 vs. 15.0, p = 0.968), the number of harvested LPNs was higher in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (7.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.004). Postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were similar (robotic vs. laparoscopic, 35.3% and 7 days vs. 37.8% and 7 days, respectively). Both laparoscopic and robotic LPND are safe and feasible for locally advanced rectal cancers, but robotic LPND showed more harvested lateral lymph node than laparoscopic LPND.

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.

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.

Outcomes of robotic partial excision of the levator ani muscle for locally advanced low rectal cancer invading the ipsilateral pelvic floor at the anorectal ring level

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate partial excision of the levator ani muscle (PELM) enables preservation of anal sphincter function although levator ani muscle (LAM) was invaded.

METHODS

Functional outcomes and oncologic outcomes of 23 consecutive patients who underwent robotic PELM for low rectal cancer at the anorectal ring level invading or abutting the ipsilateral LAM are analysed.

RESULTS

Secured resection margins were achieved, especially for the circumferential resection margin. During a median follow-up of 44 months, the 3-year local recurrence rate was 14.4%. Among patients who underwent diverting ileostomy closure, mean Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument and Wexner scores were 68.3 ± 11.9 and 10.7 ± 5.3, respectively, at 1 year after closure.

CONCLUSION

PELM is a sphincter-preserving alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR) or extralevator APR for low rectal cancer invading the ipsilateral LAM at the level of the anorectal ring.

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.

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

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

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness

Robotic surgery is considered as one of the advanced treatment modality of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic rectal surgery has been performed for three decades and its application is gradually expanding along with technology development. It has several technical advantages which include magnified three-dimensional vision, better ergonomics, multiple articulated robotic instruments, and the opportunity to perform remote surgery. The technical benefits of robotic system can help to manipulate more meticulously during technical challenging procedures including total mesorectal excision in narrow pelvis, lateral pelvic node dissection, and intersphincteric resection. It is also reported that robotic rectal surgery have been shown more favorable postoperative functional outcomes. Despite its technical benefits, a majority of studies have been reported that there is rarely clinical or oncologic superiority of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. In addition, robotic rectal surgery showed significantly higher costs than the standard method. Hence, the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery is still questionable. In order for robotic rectal surgery to further develop in the field of minimally invasive surgery, there should be an obvious cost-effective advantages over laparoscopic surgery, and it is crucial that large-scale prospective randomized trials are required. Positive competition of industries in correlation with technological development may gradually reduce the price of the robotic system, and it will be helpful to increase the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal 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.