Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Analysis of 10 years of open, laparoscopic, and robotic rectal surgeries in the community setting

Background

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the US. Many of these patients will require operations. Although there is significant data in the literature that supports minimally invasive colorectal operations in the academic setting, few studies have examined their performance in community hospitals.

Methods

Data was collected from a high-volume, university-affiliated, community center. Our Cancer Registry Database was queried to include any patients that had rectal surgery at our institution from 2010 to 2020. One hundred-twenty-two patients were identified and reviewed retrospectively. Main outcome measures include estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, time to first bowel movement, oncologic resection, length of stay (LOS), survival, and cost analysis.

Results

Both robotic and laparoscopic operations resulted in lower average EBL, less blood transfusions, and less time to first bowel movement (p = 0.003, 0.006, 0.003, respectively). There was no significant difference in ability to achieve R0 resection, adequate lymph node retrieval, and adequate total mesorectal excision (TME, p = 0.856, 0.489, 0.500, respectively). LOS was significantly shorter for minimally invasive operations, 4.35 vs 8.48 days, and average survival was longest for laparoscopic operations at 7.19 years as compared to 5.55 years for open operations (p < 0.001, 0.026, respectively). Cost was lowest for robotic operations (0.003).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive rectal operations, especially robotic, lead to better short- and long-term outcomes, equivalent oncologic resection, and are more cost-effective as compared to open operations even in the community setting, supporting continued performance and growth of robotic colorectal operations in the community setting.

Key message

Although there is significant data in the literature that supports minimally invasive colorectal operations in the academic setting, few studies have examined their performance in community hospitals as this study does. This study found that minimally invasive rectal operations, especially robotic, lead to better short- and long-term outcomes, equivalent oncologic resection, and are more cost-effective as compared to open operations even in the community setting, supporting continued performance and growth of robotic colorectal operations in the community setting.

Lower need for allogeneic blood transfusion after robotic low anterior resection compared with open low anterior resection: a propensity score-matched analysis

Robotic low anterior resection (R-LAR) for rectal cancer may decrease estimated blood loss compared with open low anterior resection (O-LAR). The aim of this study was to compare estimated blood loss and blood transfusion within 30 days after O-LAR and R-LAR. This was a retrospective matched cohort study based on prospectively registered data from Västmanland Hospital, Sweden. The first 52 patients operated on using R-LAR for rectal cancer at Västmanland Hospital were propensity score-matched 1:2 with patients who underwent O-LAR for age, sex, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology physical classification system), and tumor distance from the anal verge. In total, 52 patients in the R-LAR group and 104 patients in the O-LAR group were included. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the O-LAR group compared with R-LAR: 582.7 ml (SD ± 489.2) vs. 86.1 ml (SD ± 67.7); p < 0.001. Within 30 days after surgery, 43.3% of patients who received O-LAR and 11.5% who received R-LAR were treated with blood transfusion (p < 0.001). As a secondary post hoc finding, multivariable analysis identified O-LAR and lower pre-operative hemoglobin level as risk factors for the need of blood transfusion within 30 days after surgery. Patients who underwent R-LAR had significantly lower estimated blood loss and a need for peri- and post-operative blood transfusion compared with O-LAR. Open surgery was shown to be associated with an increased need for blood transfusion within 30 days after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group’s practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction

There are standard treatment guidelines for the surgical management of rectal cancer, that are advocated by recognized physician societies. But, owing to disparities in access and affordability of various treatment options, there remains an unmet need for personalizing these international guidelines to Indian settings.

Methods

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) set up the Indian rectal cancer expert group, with a pre-defined selection criterion and comprised of the leading surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons managing rectal cancer in India. Following the constitution of the expert Group, members identified three areas of focus and 12 clinical questions. A thorough review of the literature was performed, and the evidence was graded as per the levels of evidence by Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The consensus was built using the modified Delphi methodology of consensus development. A consensus statement was accepted only if ≥75% of the experts were in agreement.

Results

Using the results of the review of the literature and experts’ opinions; the expert group members drafted and agreed on the final consensus statements, and these were classified as “strong or weak”, based on the GRADE framework.

Conclusion

The expert group adapted international guidelines for the surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer to Indian settings. It will be vital to disseminate these to the wider surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons’ community in India.

Comparing outcomes of robotic versus open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Background

The outcomes of robot-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, compared with open resection, have not been fully characterized.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of pathologic, short-term, and long-term outcomes in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent total or tumour-specific mesorectal excision at a high-volume cancer centre between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. Outcomes after robotic and open surgery were compared on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

Out of 1048 resections performed, 1018 patients were reviewed, with 638 who underwent robotic surgery and 380 open surgery. Robotic surgery was converted to the open approach in 17 (2.7 per cent) patients. Patients who underwent robotic surgery were younger (median 54 (range 22–91) years versus median 58 (range 18–97) years; P < 0.001), had higher tumours (median 80 (range 0–150) mm from the anal verge versus median 70 (0–150) mm; P = 0.001), and were less likely to have received neoadjuvant therapy (64 per cent versus 73 per cent; P = 0.003). For patients who underwent a robotic total mesorectal excision, the operating time was longer (median 283.5 (range 117–712) min versus median 249 (range 70–661) min; P < 0.001). However, the rate of complications was lower (29 per cent versus 45 per cent; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was shorter (median 5 (range 1–32) days versus median 7 (range 0–137) days; P < 0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 2.9 years. The proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin did not differ between the groups, nor did the rate of local recurrence (robotic versus open: 3.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.9 to 5.6 versus 2.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.0 to 4.6; P = 0.400), systemic recurrence (robotic versus open: 11.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 8.5 to 14.8 versus 13.0 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 9.2 to 16.5; P = 0.300), or overall survival (robotic versus open: 97.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 96.3 to 99.3 versus 93.5 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 90.8 to 96.2; P = 0.050). The same results were documented in a subanalysis of 370 matched patients, including 185 who underwent robotic surgery and 185 open surgery, for the overall incidence of any postoperative complications, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and systemic recurrence.

Conclusion

In patients with rectal cancer who are candidates for curative resection, robotic mesorectal excision is associated with lower complication rates, shorter length of stay, and equivalent oncologic outcomes, compared with open mesorectal excision.

Quality of life in restorative versus non-restorative resections for rectal cancer: systematic review

Background

Low rectal cancers could be treated using restorative (anterior resection, AR) or non-restorative procedures with an end/permanent stoma (Hartmann’s, HE; or abdominoperineal excision, APE). Although the surgical choice is determined by tumour and patient factors, quality of life (QoL) will also influence the patient's future beyond cancer. This systematic review of the literature compared postoperative QoL between the restorative and non-restorative techniques using validated measurement tools.

Methods

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020131492). Embase and MEDLINE, along with grey literature and trials websites, were searched comprehensively for papers published since 2012. Inclusion criteria were original research in an adult population with rectal cancer that reported QoL using a validated tool, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-CR30, QLQ-CR29, and QLQ-CR38. Studies were included if they compared AR with APE (or HE), independent of study design. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Outcomes of interest were: QoL, pain, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (stool frequency, flatulence, diarrhoea and constipation), and body image.

Results

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 6453 patients; all papers were observational and just four included preoperative evaluations. There was no identifiable difference in global QoL and pain between the two surgical techniques. Reported results regarding GI symptoms and body image documented similar findings. The ROBINS-I tool highlighted a significant risk of bias across the studies.

Conclusion

Currently, it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on postoperative QoL, pain, GI symptoms, and body image following restorative or non-restorative surgery. The included studies were generally of poor quality, lacked preoperative evaluations, and showed considerable bias in the data.

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

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

Robotic rectal resection preserves anorectal function: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Improving survival rates in rectal cancer patients has generated a growing interest in functional outcomes after total mesorectal excision (TME). The well-established low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score assesses postoperative anorectal impairment after TME. Our meta-analysis is the first to compare bowel function after open, laparoscopic, transanal, and robotic TME.

METHODS

All studies reporting functional outcomes after rectal cancer surgery (LARS score) were included, and were compared with a consecutive series of robotic TME (n = 48).

RESULTS

Thirty-two publications were identified, including 5 565 patients. Anorectal function recovered significantly better within one year after robotic TME (3.8 [95%CI -9.709-17.309]) versus laparoscopic TME (26.4 [95%CI 19.524-33.286]), p = 0.006), open TME (26.0 [95%CI 24.338-29.702], p = 0.002) and transanal TME (27.9 [95%CI 22.127-33.669], p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic TME enables better recovery of anorectal function compared to other techniques. Further prospective, high-quality studies are needed to confirm the benefits of robotic surgery.

Colorectal robotic surgery: INCA's experience

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

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

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

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

Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The application of robotic surgery for rectal cancer is increasing steadily. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare pathologic outcomes among patients with rectal cancer who underwent open rectal surgery (ORS) versus robotic rectal surgery (RRS).

Methods

We systematically searched the literature of EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) comparing ORS with RRS.

Results

Fourteen nRCTs, including 2711 patients met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.16, P = 0.13), number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD: −0.31, 95% CI, −2.16 to 1.53, P = 0.74), complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rates (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.78, P = 0.83) and the length of distal resection margins (DRM) (WMD: −0.01, 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.25, P = 0.96) did not differ significantly between the RRS and ORS groups.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence, robotic resection for rectal cancer provided equivalent pathological outcomes to ORS in terms of CRM positivity, number of harvested lymph nodes and complete TME rates and DRM.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer

Minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated many benefits in general surgery, particularly in colon and rectal procedures. On the other hand, it has some limitations that must be taken into account, especially technical drawback. Robotic surgery has incorporated many improvements to overcome this disadvantage, such as 3D visualization, articulating instruments assisting complex and precise movements. As a result, robotic colorectal surgery shows less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to oral tolerance and initial flatus (particularly associated with "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" protocol), less conversion rate to open surgery, shortened hospital stay, and longer distal margins compared to laparoscopic and open surgery. This approach also shows a shorter learning curve. Some studies suggest that it could decrease perioperatively or 30 days after the intervention's mortality, raise overall survival, reduce wound infection, and improve functional results, while others show no significant difference. However, it lengthens surgical time. Otherwise, the studies included do not show statistically significant changes in the number of resected lymph nodes and anastomotic leaks. Economic costs remain one of the major concerns, although to date there are no large-scale studies that have evaluated this aspect from a global point of view. Robotic surgery represents a qualitative leap in surgical instruments and, although there is no strong evidence in favor of the use of robotic surgery over laparoscopic or open surgery, there is enough evidence to support its use in colorectal surgery, with potential advantages for patients.

Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care?

INTRODUCTION

The increased use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of colorectal cancer has led to a renewed focus on how certain factors, such as insurance status, impact the equitable distribution of both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Our goal was to analyze surgical wait times between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches, and to determine whether insurance status impacts timely access to treatment.

METHODS

After IRB approval, adult patients from the National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer were identified (2010-2016). Patients who underwent radiation therapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, had wait times of 0 days from diagnosis to surgery, or had metastatic disease were excluded. Primary outcomes were days from cancer diagnosis to surgery and days from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among 324,784 patients, 5.9% underwent robotic, 47.5% laparoscopic, and 46.7% open surgery. Patients undergoing robotic surgery incurred the longest wait times from diagnosis to surgery (29.5 days [robotic] vs. 21.7 [laparoscopic] vs. 17.2 [open], p < 0.001), but the shortest wait times from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy (48.9 days [robotic] vs. 49.9 [laparoscopic] vs. 54.8 [open], p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was associated with a 1.46 × longer wait time to surgery (IRR 1.462, 95% CI 1.458-1.467, p < 0.001), but decreased wait time to adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.909, 95% CI 0.905-0.913, p < 0.001) compared to an open approach. Private insurance was associated with decreased wait times to surgery (IRR 0.966, 95% CI 0.962-0.969, p < 0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.862, 95% CI 0.858-0.865, p < 0.001) compared to Medicaid.

CONCLUSION

Though patients undergoing robotic surgery experienced delays from diagnosis to surgery, they tended to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy sooner compared to those undergoing open or laparoscopic approaches. Private insurance was independently associated not only with access to robotic surgery, but also shorter wait times during all stages of treatment.

Comparative Evaluation of the Short-Term Treatment Outcomes Between Open, Laparoscopic- and Robotic-Assisted Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer Treatment

The open surgeries and more recently minimal invasive surgeries aided by laparoscopic or robotic approaches are employed for rectal cancer treatment procedures. The open approach is the most commonly opted technique, but recent studies have also shown that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has become the standard of care. There are certain shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery such as long learning curve, inadequate counter traction, limited dexterity, lack of tactile feedback and limited two-dimensional visions. Robotic surgery also offers several benefits to overcome the drawbacks of laparoscopic procedures, such as providing better dexterity and a more stable visualization. This study aims to analyse the surgical results in terms of completion of TME, short-term surgical outcomes and hospital stay in after open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted rectal resections respectively. A retrospective review of prospectively maintained database of patients operated for carcinoma rectum between January 2013 and August 2018 at Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Manipal-Vattikuti Institute of Robotic Surgery, Bangalore, was analysed in this study. The surgical parameters like completion of total mesorectal excision; proximal, distal and circumferential resection margins; number of nodes retrieved; and total post operative hospital stay were analysed in the open, laparoscopic-assisted and robotic-assisted groups. A total of 100 patients were included in the study consisting of 25, 25 and 50 patients each in the open, laparoscopic and robotic arms respectively. In case the desired results were not obtained using the advanced technique the procedure was converted and open technique was adopted. The conversion rate to open procedure was 8% (2of 25) in the laparoscopic-assisted group and 2% (1/50) in the robotic-assisted group. The average post operative hospital stay was 7.4, 7.36 and 6 days in the open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted group (p = 0.01) respectively. Robotic rectal resections show a trend towards better surgical results in the form of improved circumferential resection margins, completeness of TME and lower conversion rates.

Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute

Surgical techniques have evolved over the past few decades, and minimally invasive surgery has been rapidly adapted to become a preferred operative approach for treating colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain a technical challenge for surgeons to perform laparoscopically, which has prompted the development of robotic platforms. Robotic surgery has been introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. The present article provides an overview of robotic rectal surgery and describes many advances that have been made in the field over the past two decades. More specifically, the introduction of the robotic platform and its benefits, and the limitations of current robotic technology, are discussed. Although the main advantages of robotic surgery over conventional laparoscopy appear to be lower conversion rates and better surgical specimen quality, oncological and functional outcomes appear to be similar to those of other alternatives. Other potential benefits include earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision. Nevertheless, the costs and lack of haptic feedback remain the primary limitations to the widespread use of robotic technology in the field.

Frailer Patients Undergoing Robotic Colectomies for Colon Cancer Experience Increased Complication Rates Compared With Open or Laparoscopic Approaches

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques are routinely promoted as alternatives to open surgery because of improved outcomes. However, the impact of robotic surgery on certain subsets of the population, such as frail patients, is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to examine the association between frailty and minimally invasive surgical approaches with colon cancer surgery.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected outcomes data. Thirty-day surgical outcomes were compared by frailty and surgical approach using doubly robust multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting, and testing for interaction effects between frailty and surgical approach.

SETTING

Patients undergoing an open, laparoscopic, or robotic colectomy for primary colon cancer, 2012 to 2016, were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing a colectomy with an operative indication for primary colon cancer were selected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were 30-day postoperative complications.

RESULTS

After propensity score weighting of patients undergoing colectomy, 33.8% (n = 27,649) underwent an open approach versus 34.3% (n = 28,058) underwent laparoscopic surgery versus 31.9% (n = 26,096) underwent robotic surgery. Robotic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) and laparoscopic (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) surgeries were independently associated with decreased rates of major complications. Frailer patients had increased complication rates (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). When considering the interaction effects between surgical approach and frailty, frailer patients undergoing robotic surgery were more likely to develop a major complication (combined adjusted OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) compared with patients undergoing open surgery.

LIMITATIONS

Use of the modified Frailty Index as an associative proxy for frailty was a limitation of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although minimally invasive surgical approaches have decreased postoperative complications, this effect may be reversed in frail patients. These findings challenge the belief that robotic surgery provides a favorable alternative to open surgery in frail patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. LOS PACIENTES MÁS FRÁGILES SOMETIDOS A COLECTOMÍA ROBÓTICA POR CÁNCER DE COLON EXPERIMENTAN MAYORES TASAS DE COMPLICACIONES EN COMPARACIÓN CON ABORDAJES LAPAROSCÓPICO O ABIERTO: Las técnicas quirúrgicas mínimamente invasivas estan frecuentement promovidas como alternativas a la cirugía abierta debido a sus mejores resultados. Sin embargo, el impacto de la cirugía robótica en ciertos subgrupos de población, como el caso de los pacientes endebles, es poco conocido.El propósito de nuestro estudio fue examinar la asociación entre la fragilidad de los pacientes y el aborgaje quirúrgico mínimamente invasivo para la cirugía de cáncer de colon.Estudio retrospectivo de datos de resultados recolectados prospectivamente. Los resultados quirúrgicos a 30 días se compararon entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico utilizando la regresión logística multivariable doblemente robusta con ponderación de puntaje de propensión y pruebas de efectos de interacción entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico.Los pacientes identificados en la base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos, que fueron sometidos a una colectomía abierta, laparoscópica o robótica por cáncer de colon primario, de 2012 a 2016.Todos aquellos pacientes seleccionados con indicación quirúrgica de cáncer primario de colon que fueron sometidos a una colectomía.Las complicaciones postoperatorias a 30 días.Luego de ponderar el puntaje de propensión de los pacientes colectomizados, el 33.8% (n = 27,649) fué sometido a laparotomía versus el 34.3% (n = 28,058) operados por laparoscopía versus el 31.9% (n = 26,096) operados con tecnica robótica. Las cirugías robóticas (OR 0.53, IC 95% 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) y laparoscópicas (OR 0.58, IC 95% 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) se asociaron de forma independiente con una disminución de las tasas de complicaciones mayores. Los pacientes más delicados tenían mayores tasas de complicaciones (OR 1.56, IC 95% 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). Al considerar los efectos de interacción entre el abordaje quirúrgico y la fragilidad, los pacientes más débiles sometidos a cirugía robótica tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar una complicación mayor (OR ajustado combinado 3.15, IC 95% 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) en comparación con los pacientes sometidos a cirugía abierta.El uso del índice de fragilidad modificado como apoderado asociativo de la fragilidad.Si bien los abordajes quirúrgicos mínimamente invasivos han disminuido las complicaciones postoperatorias, este efecto puede revertirse en pacientes lábiles. Estos hallazgos desafían la creencia de que la cirugía robótica proporciona una alternativa favorable a la cirugía abierta en pacientes frágiles. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

A comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision: trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved by employing open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LaTME) and robotic (RoTME) approaches but which of these has the best outcome? The aim of present study is to identify the most effective technique for rectal cancer by comparing all outcomes.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared at least two TME strategies were identified by literature search of electronic databases of articles published to June 2018. Network meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis was performed using a frequentist approach with random-effects meta-analysis. Data collection and analysis We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved publications were independently and blindly assessed by two authors.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs with 4882 rectal cancer patients were included in this analysis. The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the cumulative Z-curve crossed either the traditional boundary or the trial sequential monitoring boundaries, suggesting that OpTME resulted in a more complete TME specimen than LaTME (relative risk 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.08). Network meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in the other comparisons. Based on the P score of completeness of the TME specimen and circumferential resection margin positivity, the best technique was OpTME, followed by RoTME and then LaTME. However, this order was reversed when complications and mortality were considered. RoTME led to better lymph node harvest.

CONCLUSIONS

Although OpTME may give better pathological specimens, minimally invasive techniques may have advantages when considering lymph node harvest, complications and mortality. More RCTs are needed to determine which technique actually gives the best chance of survival.

Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer in the US: a skewed population

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic and racial differences have been associated with disparities in cancer care within the US, including disparate access to minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. We hypothesized that robotic approach to rectal cancer may be associated with similar disparities.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients over 18 years old with clinical stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent a proctectomy between 2010 and 2014. Demographic and hospital factors were analyzed for association with robotic approach. Factors identified on bivariate analyses informed multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 33,503 patients who met inclusion criteria; 3702 (11.1%) underwent robotic surgery with 7.8% conversion rate. Patients who received robotic surgery were more likely to be male, white, privately insured and with stage III cancer. They were also more likely to live in a metropolitan area, more than 25 miles away from the hospital and with a higher high school graduation rate. The treating hospital was more likely to be academic and high volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is performed rarely and access to it is limited for patients who are female, black, older, non-privately insured and unable to travel to high-volume teaching institutions. The advantages of robotic surgery may not be available to all patients given disparate access to the robot. This inherent bias in access to robot may skew study populations, preventing generalizability of robotic surgery research.

Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current state and future perspective

Interest in minimally invasive surgery has increased in recent decades. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) was introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. RALS has the potential to provide better clinical outcomes in rectal cancer surgery, allowing for precise dissection in the narrow pelvic space. In addition, RALS represents an important advancement in surgical education with respect to use of the dual-console robotic surgery system. Because the public health insurance systems in Japan have covered the cost of RALS for rectal cancer since April 2018, RALS has been attracting increasingly more attention. Although no overall robust evidence has yet shown that RALS is superior to laparoscopic or open surgery, the current evidence supports the notion that technically demanding subgroups (patients with obesity, male patients, and patients treated by extended procedures) may benefit from RALS. Technological innovation is a constantly evolving field. Several companies have been developing new robotic systems that incorporate new technology. This competition among companies in the development of such systems is anticipated to lead to further improvements in patient outcomes as well as drive down the cost of RALS, which is one main concern of this new technique.

Appraisal and Current Considerations of Robotics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology aims to obviate some of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, yet the role of robotics in colorectal surgery is still largely undefined and varies with respect to its application in abdominal versus pelvic surgery.

METHODS

With this review, we aimed to highlight current developments in colorectal robotic surgery. We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We critically reviewed the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colon and rectal surgery.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is oncologically safe and has short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopy, with potential benefits in rectal surgery. It has a shorter learning curve but increased operative times and costs. It offers potential advantages in the resection of rectal cancer, due to lower conversion rates. There is also a trend toward better outcomes in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity, and perseveration of autonomic function.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy remains technically challenging and conversion rates are still high. Therefore, most cases of colorectal surgery are still performed open. Robotic surgery aims to overcome the limits of the laparoscopic technique. This new technology has many advantages in terms of articulating instruments, advanced three-dimensional optics, surgeon ergonomics, and improved accessibility to narrow spaces, such as the pelvis. However, further studies are needed to assess long-term results and benefits.

Thymectomy via open surgery or robotic video assisted thoracic surgery: Can a recommendation already be made?

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RVATS) is a relatively new technique applied for thymectomies. Only few studies directly compare RVATS to the mainstay therapy, open surgery (sternotomy).

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was performed in October 2016. The meta-analysis includes studies comparing robotassisted and open thymectomy regarding operation time, length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, and chest-in-tube days, postoperative complications, reoperation, arrhythmic events, pleural effusion, and postoperative bleeding.

RESULTS

Of 626 studies preliminary screened, 7 articles were included. There were no significant differences in comparison of operation time (-3.19 minutes [95% confidence interval, 95% CI -112.43 to 106.05]; P = .94), but patients undergoing RVATS spent significantly less time in hospital (-4.06 days [95% CI -7.98 to -0.13], P = .046). There were fewer chests-in-tube days (-2.50 days [95% CI -15.01 to 10.01]; P = .24) and less intraoperative blood loss (-256.84 mL [95% CI -627.47 to 113.80]; P = .10) observed in the RVATS group; due to a small number of studies, these results were not statistically significant. There were also less post-operative complications in the RVATS group (12 complications in 209 patients vs 51 complications in 259 patients); however, this difference was not statistical significant (odds ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-1.12; P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing RVATS spent less time in hospital than patients treated by open surgery (sternotomy). These patients tended to have less postoperative complications, less intraoperative blood loss, and fewer chest-in-tube days. We found evidence for the safety and feasibility of RVATS compared with open surgery, which has to be further confirmed in randomised controlled trials.

Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

Over the past few decades, robotic surgery has developed from a futuristic dream to a real, widely used technology. Today, robotic platforms are used for a range of procedures and have added a new facet to the development and implementation of minimally invasive surgeries. The potential advantages are enormous, but the current progress is impeded by high costs and limited technology. However, recent advances in haptic feedback systems and single-port surgical techniques demonstrate a clear role for robotics and are likely to improve surgical outcomes. Although robotic surgeries have become the gold standard for a number of procedures, the research in colorectal surgery is not definitive and more work needs to be done to prove its safety and efficacy to both surgeons and patients.