Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis

Comparative analysis of safety and effectiveness between natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional transabdominal specimen extraction in robot-assisted colorectal cancer resection through systematic review and meta-analysis

The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases to July 2024 that focus on patients who have undergone robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. Specifically, this review will compare NOSE with conventional TASE. Only studies published in English will be considered. Literature screening will adhere closely to predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will involve the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis of the included studies' data will be performed using Review Manager 5.4.1. In the final analysis, 9 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1571 patients were included. Out of these, 732 patients opted for NOSE, while 839 patients chose conventional TASE in robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who received TASE experienced enhancements in hospital stay duration, time until first gas passage, wound infection rates, and time until the first intake of a liquid diet. Nevertheless, there were no notable distinctions noted between the two methods regarding surgery duration, projected blood loss, intestinal blockage, or frequency of anastomotic leakage. In patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery, the safety and feasibility of NOSE are demonstrated. Compared to traditional TASE, it provides clear benefits including shorter hospital stays, earlier first flatus, quicker initiation of a liquid diet, and lower risk of wound infection.

Progress, challenges, and future perspectives of robot-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: a review

With the continuous advancements in precision medicine and the relentless pursuit of minimally invasive techniques, Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) has emerged. Compared to traditional surgical methods, NOSES better embodies the principles of minimally invasive surgery, making scar-free operations possible. In recent years, with the progress of science and technology, Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery has been widely applied in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Robotic surgical systems, with their clear surgical view and high operational precision, have shown significant advantages in the treatment process. To further improve the therapeutic outcomes for colorectal cancer patients, some scholars have attempted to combine robotic technology with NOSES. However, like traditional open surgery or laparoscopic surgery, the use of the robotic platform presents both advantages and limitations. Therefore, this study reviews the current research status, progress, and controversies regarding Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery for colorectal cancer, aiming to provide clinicians with more options in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer.

Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSE) compared to traditional robotic transabdominal wall specimen retrieval surgery (TWSR) for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) from inception to August 2023. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, the number of lymph nodes harvested, overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, the additional use of analgesics, the restoration of gastrointestinal function, blood loss, the mean operation time, and length of postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, a total of 717 patients from 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the TWSR group, the NOSE group had greater benefits in terms of overall postoperative complications [odds ratios (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.34 to 0.89; P = 0.01, I2 = 0%)], the number of lymph nodes harvested [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 1.18; 95% CI = 0.15 to 2.21; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%)], the rate of wound infection (OR 0.17; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.80; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%), the passed flatus time (WMD =  - 0.35 days; 95% CI =  - 0.60 to - 0.10; P = 0.007, I2 = 73%), the additional use of analgesics (OR 0.25; 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.40; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), the diet recovery time (WMD =  - 0.56; 95% CI =  - 1.00 to - 0.11; P = 0.01, I2 = 78%) and the postoperative VAS score (WMD =  - 1.23; 95% CI =  - 1.63 to - 0.83; P < 0.001, I2 = 65%). There were no significant differences in the blood loss (WMD =  - 5.78 ml; 95% CI =  - 17.57 to 6.00; P = 0.34, I2 = 90%), mean operation time (WMD = 14.10 min; 95% CI =  - 3.76 to 31.96; P = 0.12) (I2 = 93%), length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD =  - 0.47 day; 95% CI =  - 0.98 to 0.03; P = 0.07, I2 = 51%), incidences of postoperative ileus (OR 1.0; 95% CI = 0.22 to 4.46; P = 1.00, I2 = 0%), anastomotic leakage (OR 0.73; 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.60; P = 0.43, I2 = 0%), and intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.59; 95% CI = 0.47 to 5.40; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%), or 3-year overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.94; P = 0.81)] or disease-free survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.54 to 1.63; P = 0.82, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that the NOSE group had better postoperative outcomes than did the TWSR group and that NOSE was a safe and viable alternative to TWSR. More large-sample reviews and further randomized trials are warranted.

LASSO-based nomogram predicts the risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome for middle and low rectal cancer underwent robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aims to analyze the influencing factors of postoperative Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) in patients with middle and low rectal cancer who underwent robotic surgery. It also seeks to predict the probability of LARS through a visual, quantitative, and graphical nomogram. This approach is expected to lower the risk of postoperative LARS in these patients and improve their quality of life through effective prevention and early intervention.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This research involved patients with middle and low rectal cancer who underwent robotic surgery in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from January 2015 to October 2022. A series of intestinal dysfunction symptoms arising from postoperative rectal cancer were diagnosed and graded using LARS scoring criteria. After the initial screening of all variables related to LARS with Lasso regression, they were included in logistic regression for further univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for LARS. A prediction model was then constructed.

RESULTS

The study included 358 patients. The parameters identified by Lasso regression included obstruction, BMI, tumor localization, maximum tumor diameter, AJCC stage, stoma, neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and postoperative adjuvant therapy (AT). Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that a higher BMI, lower tumor localization, higher AJCC stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and postoperative adjuvant therapy were independent risk factors for total LARS. The AUC of the prediction nomogram was 0.834, with a sensitivity of 0.825 and specificity of 0.741. The calibration curve demonstrated excellent concordance with the nomogram, indicating the prediction curve fit the diagonal well.

CONCLUSION

Higher BMI, lower tumor localization, higher AJCC stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy were identified as independent risk factors for total LARS. A new predictive nomogram for postoperative LARS in patients with middle and low rectal cancer undergoing robotic surgery was developed, proving to be stable and reliable. This tool will assist clinicians in managing the postoperative treatment of these patients, facilitating better clinical decision-making and maximizing patient benefits.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional robotic colorectal cancer resection: a propensity score matching study

Robotic resection is widely used to treat colorectal cancer. Although the novel natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) results in less trauma, its safety and effectiveness are relatively unknown. In the present study, we used propensity score matching to compare the effectiveness and safety of NOSES and robotic resection for treating colorectal cancer. Present retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent robotic colon and rectal cancer surgery between January 2016 and December 2019 at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The intraoperative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, and survival status of the conventional robotic colorectal cancer resection (CRR) (78 patients) and NOSES (89 patients) groups were compared. These results showed that no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of early postoperative complications, operation time, and the number of lymph nodes dissected. Compared with the CRR group, NOSES group had shorter postoperative exhaust time [3.06 (0.76) vs. 3.53 (0.92)], earlier eating time [4.12 (1.08) vs. 4.86 (1.73)], lesser intraoperative bleeding [51.23 (26.74) vs. 67.82 (43.44)], lesser degree of pain [80.8% vs. 55.1%], and shorter length of hospital stay [8.73 (2.02) vs. 9.50 (3.45)]. All these parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in the 3-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate between both groups (P > 0.05). Collectively, robotic NOSES is a safe and effective approach for treating rectal and sigmoid colon cancers, could decrease intraoperative bleeding and postoperative complications, and accelerate the speed of intestinal function recovery.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F method vs conventional robotic resection for lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic resection using the natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F method (R-NOSES I-F) is a novel minimally invasive surgical strategy for the treatment of lower rectal cancer. However, the current literature on this method is limited to case reports, and further investigation into its safety and feasibility is warranted.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of R-NOSES I-F for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

METHODS

From September 2018 to February 2022, 206 patients diagnosed with low rectal cancer at First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were included in this retrospective analysis. Of these patients, 22 underwent R-NOSES I-F surgery (R-NOSES I-F group) and 76 underwent conventional robotic-assisted low rectal cancer resection (RLRC group). Clinicopathological data of all patients were collected and analyzed. Postoperative outcomes and prognoses were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software.

RESULTS

Patients in the R-NOSES I-F group had a significantly lower visual analog score for pain on postoperative day 1 (1.7 ± 0.7 vs 2.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.003) and shorter postoperative anal venting time (2.7 ± 0.6 vs 3.5 ± 0.7, P < 0.001) than those in the RLRC group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sex, age, body mass index, tumor size, TNM stage, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, or inflammatory response (P > 0.05). Postoperative anal and urinary functions, as assessed by Wexner, low anterior resection syndrome, and International Prostate Symptom Scale scores, were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). Long-term follow-up revealed no significant differences in the rates of local recurrence and distant metastasis between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

R-NOSES I-F is a safe and effective minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of lower rectal cancer. It improves pain relief, promotes gastrointestinal function recovery, and helps avoid incision-related complications.

Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer: A propensity matching study

Background

The transvaginal route for specimen extraction is considered ideal for colorectal surgery, but its safety is still questioned. There has been little research on transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) in the right hemicolectomy. As a result, we conducted a study comparing transvaginal NOSES to traditional transabdominal specimen extraction surgery.

Patients and methods

Data on female patients who underwent radical right hemicolectomy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January 2015 and December 2020 were collected retrospectively. A total of 847 patients were compliant, with 51 undergoing the transvaginal specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) group and 796 undergoing the transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (TISES) group. A propensity score matching method (1:2) was used to balance the clinicopathological characteristics of the two groups.

Results

Finally, 138 patients were enrolled in our study, with 46 in the NOSES group and 92 in the TISES group. Compared to the TISES group, the NOSES group had less intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.036), shorter time to first flatus (p &lt; 0.001), shorter time to first liquid diet (p &lt; 0.001), lower postoperative white blood cell counts (p = 0.026), lower C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.027), and lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores (p &lt; 0.001). Regarding the quality of life after surgery, the NOSES group had better role function (p &lt; 0.01), emotional function (p &lt; 0.001), and improved symptoms of postoperative pain (p &lt; 0.001) and diarrhea (p = 0.024). The scar satisfaction was significantly higher in the NOSES group than in the TISES group. Overall survival and disease-free survival in two groups were similar.

Conclusion

The short-term results of transvaginal NOSES were superior to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction surgery. At the same time, transvaginal NOSES could improve the abdominal wall appearance and quality of life. The long-term survival was similar in the two surgical approaches. Therefore, transvaginal NOSES is worthy of our implementation and promotion.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional robotic resection for patients with colorectal neoplasms

Background

Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been widely used in colorectal neoplasms. However, only a few studies have focused on robotic NOSES. This study compared the short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival outcomes between robotic NOSES and conventional robotic resection (CRR) groups.

Methods

From March 2016 to October 2018, a consecutive of 143 patients who underwent robotic sigmoid and rectal resection at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, were considered for inclusion in this study. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to account for differences in the baseline characteristics. After PSM, 39 patients were included in the robotic NOSES group, and 39 patients in the CRR group. The baseline characteristics between the two groups were all balanced and comparable.

Results

Patients in the NOSES group experienced less intraoperative blood loss (p=0.001), lower requirements for additional analgesia (p=0.020), shorter time to first flatus (p=0.010), and a shorter time to first liquid diet (p=0.003) than the CRR group. The 3-year overall survival rates (NOSES: 92.3% vs. CRR: 89.7% p=1.000) and 3-year disease-free survival rates (NOSES: 82.1% vs. CRR: 84.6% p=0.761) between the two groups were comparable.

Conclusion

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery is a safe and feasible surgery for patients with colorectal neoplasms. Robotic NOSES is associated with better short-term clinical outcomes and similar long-term survival outcomes to conventional robotic resection.

Comparison of transabdominal wall specimen retrieval and natural orifice specimen extraction robotic surgery in the outcome of colorectal cancer treatment

Background

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES), as a new star of minimally invasive techniques, has been increasingly favored and promoted in the field of surgery around the world. Most previous studies were comparative studies of laparoscopic NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, there is little research on comparing robotic colorectal cancer NOSES with conventional robotic-assisted colorectal cancer resection surgery.

Participant and methods

This study is a retrospective study of propensity score matching (PSM). This study included Ninety-one propensity score-matched pairs of the participant who had undergone robotic colorectal cancer resection surgery at our center between January 2017 and December 2020. The covariates used in the propensity score included gender, age, BMI, ASA score, maximum tumor diameter, the tumor's height from the anal verge, histological differentiation, AJCC stage, T stage, N stage, and history of previous abdominal surgery. The outcome measurement criteria included postoperative complications, inflammatory response, pelvic floor function, anal function, cosmetic outcome, quality of life, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

The robotic NOSES group had faster recovery time from gastrointestinal function (P = 0.014), shorter abdominal incision length (P < 0.001), less pain (P < 0.001), less additional analgesia required (P < 0.001), and lower postoperative indicators of white blood cell count (P < 0.001) and C-reactive protein content compared to the robotic-assisted resection surgery (RARS) group (P = 0.035). Additionally, the robotic NOSES group had significantly better body imagery (P < 0.001), cosmetic scores (P < 0.001), somatic function (P = 0.003), role function (P = 0.039), emotional function (P = 0.001), social function (P = 0.004), and overall function (P < 0.001) than the RARS group. The two groups demonstrated no significant difference between DFS and OS.

Conclusion

Robotic colorectal cancer NOSES is a safe and feasible minimally invasive procedure and offers shorter abdominal incisions, less pain, less surgical stress response, and better postoperative quality of life. Therefore, this technique can be further promoted for colorectal cancer patients eligible for NOSES.

Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Background

Although some studies have assessed the learning curve of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, most studies included limited sample sizes, no study used postoperative complications as an independent variable to analyze the learning curve of robotic rectal surgery, and no study evaluated the influence of the learning curve on long-term oncologic outcomes.

Methods

Clinical data on consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer by a single surgeon between January 2015 and December 2018 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were retrospectively collected. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) were used to visualize the learning curve of operation time and postoperative complications (CD ≥ grade II). Comparisons of clinical outcomes at different learning phases analyzed by RA-CUSUM were performed after propensity score matching.

Results

A total of 389 consecutive patients were included in the analysis. The numbers of patients needed to overcome the learning curves of operation time and postoperative complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were 34 and 36, respectively. The learning process was divided into two phases based on RA-CUSUM: the learning phase (1st-36th cases) and the mastery phase (37th-389th cases). Before matching, the mastery phase had more patients with older age, lower tumor location, and neoadjuvant therapy. After matching, the two phases exhibited similar characteristics. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications in the mastery phase were reduced compared with the learning phase, with a median follow-up of 35 months, and the long-term oncologic outcomes were not significantly different between the two phases.

Conclusions

An experienced laparoscopic surgeon initially implements robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, surgical outcomes improved after 36 cases, and the learning curve seemingly did not have an obvious impact on long-term oncologic outcomes.

The natural orifice specimen extraction surgery compared with conventional laparoscopy for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of efficacy and long-term oncological outcomes

PURPOSE

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has gradually become established in treating colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis assesses NOSES in the treatment of colorectal cancer compared with conventional laparoscopy (CL) and determines the effect of long-term prognosis.

METHODS

Various medical databases were searched up to May 2021. We included retrospective and randomized trials on the treatment of colorectal cancer with NOSES. Pooled weighted/standardized mean differences (WMD/SMD), odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using either fixed- or random-effects models. STATA was conducted for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 16 studies comprising 2266 patients. Compared with CL, NOSES had more benefits in terms of overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.47, 95%CI [0.35,0.64]; Z = 4.91, P < 0.001), incision-related complications (OR = 0.15, 95%CI [0.07,0.31]; Z = 4.97, P < 0.001), time to first flatus (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI [-0.68,-0.48]; Z = 11.21, P < 0.001), hospital stay (WMD = -1.03, 95%CI [-1.55,-0.51]; Z = 3.86, P < 0.001), cosmetic scores (WMD = 1.37, 95%CI [0.59,2.14]; Z = 3.47, P = 0.001), the visual analogue scale on postoperative day 1（WMD = -1.46, 95%CI [-2.39,-0.52]; Z = 3.06, P = 0.002), additional analgesics usage (OR = 0.33, 95%CI [0.26, 0.43]; Z = 8.43, P < 0.001), whereas the operative time of NOSES was prolonged (WMD = 13.09, 95%CI [7.07,19.11]; Z = 4.26, P < 0.001). Postoperative anastomotic complications, intra-abdominal infection, pelvic floor function, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissection, 3-year disease-free and overall survival in the NOSES group were comparable with those in the CL group.

CONCLUSIONS

NOSES is a safe and reliable surgical procedure for the treatment of colorectal cancer and provides good long-term oncological outcomes. Large-scale multicenter studies are required to confirm its clinical benefits.

Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes in Mid and Low Rectal Cancer With Robotic Surgery

Objective

To investigate the risk factors for postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage after robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer and their influence on long-term outcomes.

Methods

A total of 641 patients who underwent radical mid and low rectal cancer robotic surgery at Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University from January 2014 to December 2018 were enrolled in this study. The clinicopathological factors of the patients were collected. The risk factors for short-term outcomes of complications and anastomotic leakage were analyzed, and their influences on recurrence and overall survival were studied.

Results

Of the 641 patients, 516 (80.5%) underwent AR or LAR procedures, while 125 (19.5%) underwent the NOSES procedure. Only fifteen (2.3%) patients had stoma diversion. One hundred and seventeen patients (17.6%) experienced surgical complications. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 44 patients (6.9%). Eleven patients (1.7%) underwent reoperation within 90 days after surgery. Preoperative radiotherapy did not significantly increase anastomotic leakage in our study (7.4% vs. 6.8%, P = 0.869). The mean postoperative hospital stay was much longer with complication (10.4 vs. 7.1 days, P<0.05) and leakage (12.9 vs. 7.4 days, P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that male sex (OR = 1.855, 95% CI: 1.175–2.923, P < 0.05), tumor distance 5 cm from the anus (OR = 1.563, 95% CI: 1.016–2.404, P < 0.05), and operation time length (OR = 1.563, 95% CI: 1.009–2.421, P < 0.05) were independent risk factors for complications in mid and low rectal cancer patients. The same results for anastomotic leakage: male sex (OR = 2.247, 95% CI: 1.126–4.902, P < 0.05), tumor distance 5 cm from the anus (OR = 2.242, 95% CI: 1.197–4.202, P < 0.05), and operation time length (OR = 2.114, 95% CI: 1.127–3.968, P < 0.05). The 3-year DFS and OS were 82.4% and 92.6% with complication, 88.4% and 94.0% without complication, 88.6% and 93.1% with leakage, and 87.0% and 93.8% without leakage, respectively. The complication and anastomotic leakage showed no significant influences on long-term outcomes.

Conclusion

Being male, having a lower tumor location, and having a prolonged operation time were independent risk factors for complications and anastomotic leakage in mid and low rectal cancer. Complications and anastomotic leakage might have no long-term impact on oncological outcomes for mid and low rectal cancer with robotic surgery.