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

Low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in robotic mid-low rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study from a single-center

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is the main surgical approach for treating rectal cancer, but there is still no clear consensus on the issue of low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery during the procedure. Robotic surgery has been shown to have certain advantages over laparoscopic surgery in multiple studies, but further research is needed to better understand the outcomes of robotic surgery in the context of low ligation procedures. In this study, we included 1590 patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Among them, 942 patients underwent low ligation surgery (LL), divided into 138 in the robotic group and 804 in the laparoscopic group. The high ligation surgery (HL) group consisted of 648 patients. The results of LL vs HL showed that the LL group had faster bowel movement recovery (P = 0.003), lower anastomotic leak rate (P = 0.032), and lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.001). The results of Rob-LL vs Lap-LL showed that the Rob-LL group had longer operative time (P < 0.001), less blood loss (P = 0.001), more lymph nodes retrieved (P = 0.045), and lower Wexner score at 2 weeks postoperatively (P = 0.029). The concept of low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery is a promising surgical approach that can accelerate the patient's functional recovery. When combined with robotic technology, it may offer more benefits than laparoscopic techniques.

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.

Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive and open radical resection for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes in elderly/frail patients

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS), such as robotic and laparoscopic procedures, is sometimes a better option than open surgery for patients with rectal cancer, it can present challenges for some elderly or frail patients who have a higher risk of chronic illnesses and poor surgical tolerance. On the basis of several pathophysiological characteristics, the patients were grouped according to their age. The time nodes, which are 65 and 80 years old, can clarify the goal of the study and offer some therapeutic benefit. These subgroups stand to gain a great deal from MIS because of its superior arm of machinery and imagery. The short-term oncological outcomes and postoperative conditions of robotic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and conventional open surgery were compared in this study using a propensity-matched analysis. In this retrospective study, a total of 2049 consecutive patients who underwent proctectomy between September 2017 and June 2023 were chosen. We then carried out a propensity matching analysis based on inclusion criteria. Patients were split into two age groups: 65-80 and  > 80. While the secondary objective was to further investigate the similar characteristics between RS and LS, the major objective was to compare oncological outcomes and postoperative conditions between MIS and OS. K-M survival curves were used to represent oncological outcomes and survival conditions. Complication rate and mFI score were used to assess postoperative conditions. Regarding the functional outcomes, the LARS scale was applied to create questionnaires that calculated the anal function of the patients. 110 cases from the group of patients aged 65-80 were successfully merged after matching 1: 1 by propensity score, whereas 73 instances from patients aged > 80 were incorporated while examining the primary objective between OS and MIS. Regarding the secondary goal, each group contained 45 cases for patients above 80 and 65 cases for patients aged 65-80, respectively. Faster recovery from MIS included quicker first flatus passage, earlier switch to liquid nutrition, and shorter hospital stay. In the meantime, MIS also showed benefits in terms of the proportion of low mFI scores and the rates of wound complications in the two age groups. Less blood loss and shorter operational time are further MIS features. On the other hand, MIS experienced more pulmonary complications than OS. Robotic surgery was statistically no different from laparoscopic surgery in patients aged 65-80, although it was superior in terms of operative time and recovery. Comparable and satisfactory oncological and survival results were obtained with all three treatments. For elderly/frail patients with rectal cancer, MIS could be recognized as an effective procedure with favorable outcomes of recovery that are accompanied by better postoperative conditions. While, robotic surgery is slightly better than laparoscopic surgery in some aspects. However, to further demonstrate the effectiveness of three surgical modalities in treating certain groups, multi-center prospective studies are required.

Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer in patients with varied body mass indexes: evaluating of short-term outcomes

The main aim of this study was to evaluate and contrast the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures in the treatment of low and mid rectal cancer in different BMI (body mass index) groups. The clinical records of patients who had laparoscopic or robotic proctectomy at a single center between December 2019 and August 2023 were analyzed. Then we utilized a classification framework to categorize individuals based on their BMI into three unique groups: non-obese, overweight, and obese. The short-term efficacy was evaluated. A consecutive sample of 1413 patients was included in this retrospective investigation. 1158 people out of the total sample chose laparoscopic surgery, whereas 255 people chose robotic surgery. In the group of obese people, robotic surgery showed a statistically significant decrease in blood loss compared to laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.026). People who were overweight or obese were in the hospital for a shorter amount of time after robotic surgery than after laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.033 and P = 0.031, respectively). People with different BMIs in the robotic surgery group took less time to have a flatus passage and oral intake those in the laparoscopic surgery group. Oncological outcomes and the frequency of complications were comparable between the two treatments with different BMIs. Surgical resection of patients undergoing low-anterior surgery may benefit from a robotic approach, particularly in overweight and obese patients.

Impact of visceral fat area on short-term outcomes in robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers that arise in the digestive tract. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the impact of visceral fat area (VFA) on postoperative outcomes in mid and low rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery (RS). Data were collected on patients who underwent robotic anterior rectal resection in a single center from December 2019 to October 2023. Clinical pathology information was analyzed. Statistical analysis was done on the computed tomography (CT) imaging data. A total of 277 patients were included in the study, including 121 cases with visceral obesity (VO) and 156 cases without VO. There was no statistically significant disparity in the lymph node dissection count, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, time to first liquid diet, early postoperative complications, histopathologic specimen indices (quality of TME and CRM involvement rate), and or the rate of conversion to open surgery between VO and non-VO group (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, the group of individuals with VO experienced a lengthier duration of surgery (P < 0.001) and a delayed time until the first passage of flatus (P < 0.001) in comparison to the group without VO. The study suggests that VO does not significantly impact early complications or the quality of surgical outcomes in mid and low rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery. The findings support the continued use of RS as an optimal strategy for technically demanding 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.