Does Conversion to Open of Laparoscopically Attempted Rectal Cancer Cases Affect Short- and Long-Term Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Early Clinical and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Converted Rectal Cancer Resection: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Aim The effects of conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer on perioperative clinical and long-term oncological outcomes are still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the impact of conversion to laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer on perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. Material and methods Between January 2019 and December 2023, 84 consecutive patients who underwent curative surgery for rectal cancer at a single academic center were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were classified and compared as the laparoscopic (LAP-G) and converted (CONV-G) groups. Perioperative, pathological, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared. Results Of the 84 consecutive patients included, 18 were converted to open surgery, leading to a 21.4% conversion rate. Intraoperative blood loss was higher in CONV-G (180 ml vs. 80 ml, p<0.001), but early clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. The median follow-up period was 23.5 (range 3-65) and 30.5 (range 6-61) months in the LAP-G and CONV-G, respectively, and recurrence occurred in 11 (16.7%) and 3 (16.6%) patients, respectively. Three-year overall survival was 96.9% and 89.4% (p=0.609) and 3-year disease-free survival was 92.4% and 83.3% (p=0.881) in LAP-G and CONV-G, respectively, and the results were similar. Conclusion Conversion from laparoscopic rectal resection to open surgery does not have a significant negative impact on morbidity and long-term oncological outcomes.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Systematic Review Registration

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

The role of transanal compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (taTME vs. lapTME) for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer in obese patients: outcomes of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis

To compare the rate of sphincter-saving interventions between transanal and laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in this particular group of patients. A multicentre observational study was conducted using a prospective database, including patients diagnosed with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, who underwent minimally invasive elective surgery over a 5-year period. Exclusion criteria were (1) sphincter and/or puborectalis invasion; (2) multi-visceral resections; (3) palliative surgeries. The study population was divided into two groups according to the intervention: transanal or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. The primary outcome was the rate of sphincter-saving surgery. Secondary outcomes included conversion, postoperative complications, quality of the specimen, and survival. A total of 93 patients were included; 40 (43%) transanal total mesorectal excision were compared to 53 (57%) laparoscopic. In addition, 35 cases of transanal approach were case-matched with an equal number of laparoscopic approaches, based on gender, tumor's height, and neoadjuvant therapy. In both groups, 43% of the patients had low rectal cancer; however, the rate of sphincter-saving surgery was significantly higher in the transanal group (97% vs. 71%, p = 0.003). There were no conversions to open surgery in the transanal group, compared to 2 cases in the laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.246). The percentage of major complications was similar, including the rate of anastomotic leakage (10% transanal vs. 19% laparoscopic, p = 0.835). In our experience, higher percentages of sphincter-saving procedures and lower conversion rates are potential benefits of using the transanal approach in a complex surgical setting population of obese patients with mid-low rectal tumors when compared to laparoscopic.

Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although several studies compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy, most of them reflect the outcomes of the utilisation of older generation robotic platforms. The aim of this study is to compare the financial and clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy within a public healthcare system, utilising a multi-quadrant platform.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy between January 2017 and June 2020 in a public quaternary centre were included. Demographic characteristics, baseline clinical, tumour and operative variables, perioperative, histopathological outcomes and costs were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. Simple linear regression and generalised linear model analyses with gamma distribution and log-link function were used to determine the impact of the surgical approach on overall costs.

RESULTS

During the study period, 113 patients underwent minimally invasive proctectomy. Of these, 81 (71.7%) underwent a robotic proctectomy. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate (2.5% versus 21.8%;P = 0.002) at the expense of longer operating times (284 ± 83.4 versus 243 ± 89.8 min;P = 0.025). Regarding financial outcomes, robotic surgery was associated with increased theatre costs (A$23,019 ± 8235 versus A$15,525 ± 6382; P < 0.001) and overall costs (A$34,350 ± 14,770 versus A$26,083 ± 12,647; P = 0.003). Hospitalisation costs were similar between both approaches. An ASA ≥ 3, non-metastatic disease, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, non-restorative resection, extended resection, and a robotic approach were identified as drivers of overall costs in the univariate analysis. However, after performing a multivariate analysis, a robotic approach was not identified as an independent driver of overall costs during the inpatient episode (P = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Robotic proctectomy was associated with increased theatre costs but not with increased overall inpatient costs within a public healthcare setting. Conversion was less common for robotic proctectomy at the expense of increased operating time. Larger studies will be needed to confirm these findings and examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic proctectomy to further justify its penetration in the public healthcare system.

Impact of the approach on conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the approach on conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision within a single unit.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision between January 2006 and June 2020 were included. Subjects were classified according to the presence or absence of conversion. Baseline variables and short-term outcomes were compared. Regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the approach and conversion.

RESULTS

During the study period, 318 patients underwent a restorative proctectomy. Of these, 240 met the inclusion criteria. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches were undertaken in 147 (61.3%) and 93 (38.8%) cases, respectively. A transanal approach was utilised in 62 (25.8%) cases (58.1% in combination with a robotic transabdominal approach). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 30 cases (12.5%). Conversion was associated with an increased overall complication rate (P = 0.003), surgical complications (P = 0.009), superficial surgical site infections (P = 0.02) and an increased length of hospital stay (P = 0.006). Robotic and transanal approaches were both associated with decreased conversion rates. The multiple logistic regression analysis, however, showed that only a transanal approach was independently associated with a lower risk of conversion (OR 0.147, 0.023-0.532; P = 0.01), whilst obesity was an independent risk factor for conversion (OR 4.388, 1.852-10.56; P < 0.00).

CONCLUSIONS

A transanal component is associated with a reduced conversion rate in minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision, regardless of the transabdominal approach utilised. Larger studies will be required to confirm these findings and define which subgroup of patients could benefit from transanal component when a robotic approach is undertaken.

Long term oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer - A population-based nationwide noninferiority study

AIM

The aim of this work was to compare the 5-year overall survival in a national cohort of patients undergoing curative abdominal resection for rectal cancer by laparoscopic (LAP) or open (OPEN) surgery.

METHOD

All patients diagnosed with clinical Stage I-III rectal cancer and who underwent LAP or OPEN abdominal curative surgery in Sweden between 2010 and 2016 were retrieved from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. A noninferiority study design was employed with a statistical power of 90%, a one-side type I error of 2.5% and a noninferiority margin of 2%. The analyses were performed as intention-to-treat and the relationship between surgical technique and overall mortality within 5 years was analysed. Multilevel regression models with the patients matched by propensity scores adjusted for patient- and tumour-related variables were used.

RESULTS

A total of 8410 Stage I-III cancer patients were included. This group underwent 2094 LAP (24.9%) and 6316 OPEN (75.1%) procedures and were followed until 31 December 2020. Multivariable Cox regression demonstrated that 5-year overall survival was higher in the LAP group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.877; 95% CI 0.775-0.993]. [Correction added on 21 November 2022, after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, the CI value for LAP group has been corrected from "0.877" to "0.775" in this version.] The outcome was similar when multiple imputation and propensity score matching were employed. When cT4 patients were excluded there was no difference (HR 0.885; 95% CI 0.790-1.033). At 5-years' follow-up local recurrence was not different, at 2.9% for the LAP group and 3.6% for the OPEN group (p = 0.075), while metastatic disease was more frequent in the OPEN group (19.6% compared with 15.6% for LAP; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the LAP technique was not inferior to OPEN surgery with regard to overall 5-year survival. These results support the use of laparoscopic surgery.

Oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic colectomy in patients with transverse colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Literature concerning surgical management of transverse colon cancer is scarce, since many key trials excluded transverse colon cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncological outcomes comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic transverse colon cancer resection.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for transverse colon cancer between December 2005 and July 2021 were included. Data were kept in a prospective database approved by the institutional ethics committee. Primary outcome was overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included complications, operative time, length of stay and lymph node harvest. Statistical analysis was corrected for age and tumour localisation.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six (38 robotic, 71 open and 137 laparoscopic resections) were recruited in this study. There were five conversions during laparoscopic procedures. Operative time was significantly shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic procedures (195 vs 238 min, p = 0.005) and length of stay was shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic and open group (7 vs 9 vs 15 days, p < 0.001). There was no difference in overall complications. R0 resections were similar. Lymph node harvest was highest in the robotic group vs. laparoscopic or open (32 vs. 29 vs. 21, p < 0.001). Overall survival was 97%, 85% and 60% (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival was 91%, 78% and 56% (p < 0.001) for the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery for transverse colon cancer is safe and offers good clinical and oncological outcomes. Robotic resection is associated with significantly shorter operating times, higher lymph node harvest, lower conversion rate and does not increase morbidity. Differences in disease-free and overall survival should be further explored in randomised controlled trials.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Anterior Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched, Population-Based Study in Catalonia, Spain

BACKGROUND

The clinical value of transanal total mesorectal excision is debated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare short- and medium-term effects of transanal versus anterior total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The study included all Catalonian public hospitals.

PATIENTS

All patients receiving transanal or anterior total mesorectal excision (open or laparoscopic) for nonmetastatic primary rectal cancer in 2015 to 2016 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data on vital status were collected to March 2019. Between-group differences were minimized by applying propensity score matching to baseline patient characteristics. Competing risk models were used to assess systemic and local recurrence along with death at 2 years, and multivariable Cox regression was used to assess 2-year disease-free survival. Results are expressed with their 95% CIs.

RESULTS

The final subsample was 537 patients receiving total mesorectal excision (transanal approach: n = 145; anterior approach: n = 392). Median follow-up was 39.2 months (interquartile range, 33.0-45.8). Accounting for death as a competing event, there was no association between transanal total mesorectal excision and local recurrence (matched subhazard ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.55-2.96). There were no statistical differences in the comparative rate of local recurrence (transanal: 1.77 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 0.76-3.34; anterior: 1.37 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 0.8-2.15) or mortality (transanal: 3.98 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 2.36-6.16; anterior: 2.99 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 2.1-4.07). Groups presented similar 2-year cumulative incidence of local recurrence (4.83% versus 3.57%) and disease-free survival (HR, 1.33; 95% CI 0.92-1.92).

LIMITATIONS

We used data only from the public system, the study is retrospective, and data on individual surgeons are not reported.

CONCLUSION

These population-based results support the use of either the transanal, open, or laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer in Catalonia. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B744.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL TRANSANAL VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ANTERIOR PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ESTUDIO POBLACIONAL CON EMPAREJAMIENTO DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIÓN EN CATALUÑA, ESPAÑA.

ANTECEDENTES

Se debate el valor clínico de la escisión mesorrectal total transanal.

OBJETIVO

Comparar los efectos a corto y mediano plazo de la escisión mesorrectal total transanal versus anterior para el cáncer de recto.

DISEO

Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico.

AJUSTE

El estudio incluyó a todos los hospitales públicos de Cataluña.

PACIENTES

Todos los pacientes no metastásicos que recibieron escisión mesorrectal total anterior o transanal (abierta o laparoscópica) por cáncer de recto primario en 2015-16.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION

Los datos sobre el estado vital se recopilaron hasta marzo de 2019. Las diferencias entre los grupos se minimizaron aplicando el emparejamiento de puntajes de propensión a las características iniciales del paciente. Se utilizaron modelos de riesgo competitivo para evaluar la recurrencia sistémica y local junto con la muerte a los dos años, y la regresión de Cox multivariable para evaluar la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a dos años. Los resultados se expresan con sus intervalos de confianza del 95%.

RESULTADOS

La submuestra final fue de 537 pacientes que recibieron escisión mesorrectal total (abordaje transanal: n = 145; abordaje anterior: n = 392). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 39,2 meses (rango intercuartílico 33,0-45,8). Teniendo en cuenta la muerte como un evento competitivo, no hubo asociación entre la escisión mesorrectal total transanal y la recurrencia local (cociente de subriesgo apareado 1,28, 0,55-2,96). No hubo diferencias estadísticas en la tasa comparativa de recurrencia local (transanal: 1,77 por 100 personas-año, 0,76-3,34; anterior: 1,37 por 100 personas-año, 0,8-2,15) o mortalidad (transanal: 3,98 por 100 personas-año, 2,36-6,16; anterior: 2,99 por 100 personas-año, 2,1-4,07). Los grupos presentaron una incidencia acumulada de dos años similar de recidiva local (4,83% frente a 3,57%, respectivamente) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad (índice de riesgo 1,33, 0,92-1,92).

LIMITACIONES

Utilizamos datos solo del sistema público, el estudio es retrospectivo y no se informan datos sobre cirujanos individuales.

CONCLUSIONES

Estos resultados poblacionales apoyan el uso del abordaje transanal, abierto o laparoscópico para el cáncer de recto en Cataluña. Consulte. Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B744. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Does conversion during minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer have an impact on short-term and oncologic outcomes? Results of a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive rectal surgery (MIRS) for cancer provides better recovery for similar oncologic outcomes over open approach, conversion is still required in 10% and its impact on short-term and long-term outcomes remains unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on postoperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing MIRS for cancer.

METHODS

From June 2011 to March 2020, we reviewed 257 minimally invasive rectal resections for cancer recorded in a prospectively maintained database, with 192 robotic and 65 laparoscopic approaches. Patients who required conversion to open (Conversion group) were compared to those who did not have conversion (No conversion group) in terms of short-term, histologic, and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for postoperative morbidity were performed.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (7%) required conversion. The conversion rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic approach than in the robotic approach (16.9% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01). Among the 4 reactive conversions, 3 (75%) were required during robotic resections. Patients in the Conversion group had a higher morbidity rate (83.3% vs 43.1%, p = 0.01) and more severe complications (38.9%, vs 18.8%, p = 0.041). Male sex [HR = 2.46, 95%CI (1.41-4.26)], total mesorectal excision [HR = 2.89, 95%CI (1.57-5.320)], and conversion (HR = 4.87, 95%CI [1.34-17.73]) were independently associated with a higher risk of overall 30-day morbidity. R1 resections were more frequent in the Conversion group (22.2% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023) without differences in the overall (82.7 ± 7.0 months vs 79.4 ± 3.3 months, p = 0.448) and disease-free survivals (49.0 ± 8.6 months vs 70.2 ± 4.1 months, p = 0.362).

CONCLUSION

Conversion to laparotomy during MIRS for cancer was associated with poorer postoperative results without impairing oncologic outcomes. The high frequency of reactive conversion due to intraoperative complications in robotic resections confirmed that MIRS for cancer is a technically challenging procedure.

Initial experience of Chinese surgical robot "Micro Hand S″ assisted versus open and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes in a single center

BACKGROUND

A Chinese surgical robot, Micro Hand S, was introduced for clinical use as a novel robotic platform. This study aimed to comprehensively compare the early experience of the Micro Hand S robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) with conventional approaches.

METHODS

Between May 2017 and April 2018, 99 consecutive patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME (O-/L-/RTME) for rectal cancer were included. Clinical and pathological outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Surgical success as the primary endpoint was defined as the absence of (i) conversion, (ii) incomplete TME, (iii) involved circumferential and distal resection margins (CRM/DRM), (iv) severe complications.

RESULTS

The rate of surgical success was similar (89.7 vs. 86.4 vs. 84.6%, p = 0.851) in the three groups and the respective incidences were as follows: conversion (not applicable, 4.5 vs. 2.3%, p = 1.000), incomplete TME (6.9 vs. 6.8 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.980), involved CRM/DRM (0 vs. 2.3 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.592), severe complications (3.4 vs. 4.5 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.844). Compared with open and laparoscopic surgery, the robotic surgery was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, earlier first flatus time and liquid intake time, and shorter length of hospital stay (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Micro Hand S assisted TME is safe and feasible, showing comparable outcomes than conventional approaches, with superiority in blood loss, recovery of bowel function, length of hospital stay, but with increased operative time.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Clinico-epidemiologic criteria and predictors of survival of rectal cancer among Egyptians in Delta region

Background Colorectal cancer represents a global health problem. Rectal cancer in particular is increasing and is believed to carry a unique epidemiologic and prognostic criteria.

Method We herein study retrospectively the data of 245 patients from a tertiary center in Egypt. Clinico-epidemiologic criteria and predictors of survival are analyzed.

Results The disease affects younger population without sex predilection. Prognosis is affected by age, nodal status, metastasis, and bowel obstruction.

Conclusion Rectal cancer has unique criteria in the Egyptian population. A national population based registry is recommended to delineate the nature of the disease in Egypt.

High Versus Low Ligation of the Inferior Mesenteric Artery During Rectal Resection for Cancer: Oncological Outcomes After Three Years of Follow-Up From the HIGHLOW Trial

Objectives

To determine the disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and recurrence in patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with either high or low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA).

Background

The level of IMA ligation during anterior rectal resection with TME is still a matter of debate, especially in terms of oncological adequacy.

Methods

Between June 2014 and December 2016, patients scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) and TME in 6 Italian nonacademic hospitals were randomized into 2 groups in the HIGHLOW Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153801) according to the level of IMA ligation: high ligation (HL) versus low ligation (LL). DFS, DSS, and recurrence were inquired. Recurrence was determined at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and every 6 months thereafter. Patients and tumor characteristics as well as surgical outcomes were analyzed to identify risk factors for recurrence.

Results

One hundred ninety-six patients from the HIGHLOW trial were analyzed. Median follow-up for DFS was 40.6 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-64.7) and 40 (IQR, 7.6-67.8), while median follow-up for DSS was 41.2 (IQR, 10.7-64.7) and 42.7 (IQR, 6-67.6) in the HL and LL groups, respectively. The 3-year DFS rate of HL and LL patients was 82.2% and 82.1% (P = 0.874), respectively. The 3-year DSS for HL and LL patients was 92.1% and 93.4% (P = 0.897), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the local recurrence rate (2% HL vs 2.1% LL), in the regional recurrence rate (3% HL vs 2.1% LL), and in the distant recurrence rate (12.9% HL vs 13.7% LL). Multivariate analysis found conversion to open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 3.68; P = 0.001) and higher stage of disease (HR, 7.73; P < 0.001) to be significant determinant for DFS.

Conclusions

The level of inferior mesenteric artery ligation during LAR and TME for rectal cancer does not affect DFS, DSS, and recurrence.

Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit

BACKGROUND

Safety and feasibility of robotic colorectal surgery has been reported as increasing over the last decade. However safe implementation and adaptation of such a programme with comparable morbidities and acceptable oncological outcomes remains a challenge in a busy tertiary unit. We present our experience of implementation and adaptation of a structured robotic colorectal programme in a high-volume center in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Two colorectal surgeons underwent a structured robotic colorectal training programme consisting of time on simulation console, dry and wet laboratory courses, case observation, and initial mentoring. Data were collected on consecutive robotic colorectal cancer resections over a period of 12 months and compared with colorectal cancer resections data of the same surgeons' record prior to the adaptation of the new technique. Patient demographics including age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), Clavien-Dindo grading, previous abdominal surgeries, and BMI were included. Short-term outcomes including conversion to open, length of stay, return to theatre, 30- and 90-days mortality, blood loss, and post-operative analgesia were recorded. Tumour site, TNM staging, diverting stoma, neo-adjuvant therapy, total mesorectal excision (TME) grading and positive resection margins (R1) were compared. p values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ninety colorectal cancer resections were performed with curative intent from June 2018 to June 2020. Thirty robotic colorectal cancer resections (RCcR) were performed after adaption of programme and were compared with 60 non-robotic colorectal cancer resections (N-RCcR) prior to implementation of technique. There was no conversion in the RCcR group; however, in N-RCcR group, five had open resection from start and the rest had laparoscopic surgery. In laparoscopic group, there were six (10.9%) conversions to open (two adhesions, three multi-visceral involvements, one intra-operative bleed). Male-to-female ratio was 20:09 in RCcR group and 33:20 in N-RCcR groups. No significant differences in gender (p = 0.5), median age (p = 0.47), BMI (p = 0.64) and ASA scores (p = 0.72) were present in either groups. Patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable aside from an increased proportion of rectal and sigmoid cancers in RCcR group. Mean operating time, and returns to theaters were comparable in both groups. Complications were fewer in RCcR group as compared to N-RCcR (16.6% vs 25%). RCcR group patients have reduced length of stay (5 days vs 7 days) but this is not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss and conversion to open surgery was significantly lesser in the robotic group (p < 0.01). The oncological outcomes from surgery including TNM, resection margin status, lymph node yield and circumferential resection margin (for rectal cancers) were all comparable. There was no 30-day mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

Implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery is safe and effective in a busy tertiary center through a structured training programme with comparable short-term survival and oncological outcomes during learning curve.

Trends in utilization, conversion rates, and outcomes for minimally invasive approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer: a national cancer database analysis

BACKGROUND

This study examined utilization and conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer. Secondary aims were to examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent conversion to laparotomy from each approach.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was reviewed for all cases of non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2016. Utilization rates of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches were examined. Patients were split into cohorts by approach. Subgroup analyses were performed by primary tumor site and surgical procedure. Multivariable analysis was performed by multivariable logistic regression for binary outcomes and multivariable general linear models for continuous outcomes. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier and multivariable cox-proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2016, there was a statistically significant increase in utilization of the robotic and laparoscopic approaches over the study period and a statistically significant decrease in utilization of the open approach. The conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic cohorts were 7.0% and 15.7%, p < 0.0001. Subgroup analysis revealed statistically lower conversion rates between robotic and laparoscopic approaches for rectosigmoid and rectal tumors and for LAR and APR. Converted cohorts had statistically significant higher odds of short term mortality than the non-converted cohorts (p  < 0.05).Laparoscopic conversion had statistically higher odds of positive margins (p  < 0.0001) and 30-day unplanned readmission (p  < 0.0001) than the laparoscopic non-conversion. Increased adjusted mortality hazard was seen for converted laparoscopy relative to non-converted laparoscopy (p  = 0.0019).

CONCLUSION

From 2010 to 2016, there was a significant increase in utilization of minimally invasive approaches to surgical management of non-metastatic rectal cancer. A robotic approach demonstrated decreased conversion rates than a laparoscopic approach at the rectosigmoid junction and rectum and for LAR and APR. Improved outcomes were seen in the minimally invasive cohorts compared to those that converted to laparotomy.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.

Can better surgical outcomes be obtained in the learning process of robotic rectal cancer surgery? A propensity score-matched comparison between learning phases

BACKGROUND

Although studies of robotic rectal cancer surgery have demonstrated the effects of learning on operation time, comparisons have failed to demonstrate differences in clinicopathological outcomes between unadjusted learning phases. This study aimed to investigate the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery for clinicopathological outcomes and compare surgical outcomes between adjusted learning phases. Study design We enrolled 506 consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent robotic resection by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2018. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) for surgical failure was used to analyze the learning curve. Surgical failure was defined as the occurrence of any of the following: conversion to open surgery, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3a), insufficient number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), or R1 resection. Comparisons between learning phases analyzed by RA-CUSUM were performed before and after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In RA-CUSUM analysis, the learning curve was divided into two learning phases: phase 1 (1st-177th cases, n = 177) and phase 2 (178th-506th cases, n = 329). Before matching, patients in phase 2 had deeper tumor invasion and higher rates of positive LNs on pretreatment images and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. After matching, phase 1 (n = 150) and phase 2 (n = 150) patients exhibited similar clinical characteristics. Phase 2 patients had lower rates of surgical failure overall and these components: conversion to open surgery, severe complications, and insufficient harvested LNs.

CONCLUSIONS

For robotic rectal cancer surgery, surgical outcomes improved after the 177th case. Further studies by other robotic surgeons are required to validate our results.

Risk factors for conversion in laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review risk factors for conversion in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients operated on from February 2005 to April 2018. Adult patients undergoing low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal adenocarcinoma by a minimally invasive approach were included. Exclusion criteria were lack of research authorization, stage IV or recurrent rectal cancer, and emergency surgery. Risk factors for conversion were investigated using logistic regression. A subgroup analysis of obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m² or more) was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The overall conversion rate was 9·2 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed a 72 per cent lower risk of conversion when patients had robotic surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0·28, 95 per cent c.i. 0·15 to 0·52). Obese patients experienced a threefold higher risk of conversion compared with non-obese patients (47 versus 24·4 per cent respectively; P < 0·001). Robotic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of conversion in obese patients (OR 0·22, 0·07 to 0·71).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was associated with a lower risk of conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, in both obese and non-obese patients.

Does conversion during laparoscopic rectal oncological surgery increases postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage rates? A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, regarding previous published studies, postoperative outcomes between patients undergoing rectal cancer resection performed by totally laparoscopic approach (LAP) compared to those who underwent peroperative conversion (CONV).

METHODS

Studies comparing LAP versus CONV for rectal cancer published until December 2017 were selected and submitted to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles were searched in Medline and Cochrane Trials Register Database. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.0.

RESULTS

Twelve prospective and retrospective studies with a total of 4503 patients who underwent fully laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer and a total of 612 patients who underwent conversion were included. Meta-analysis did not show any significant difference on overall mortality between both approaches (OR=0.47, 95%CI=0.18-1.22, P=0.12). However, Meta-analysis showed that anastomotic leakage rate, wound abscess rate and postoperative morbidity rate were significantly decreased with totally laparoscopic approach (OR=0.37, 95%CI =0.24-0.58, P<0.0001; OR=0.29, 95%CI=0.19-0.45, P<0.00001; OR=0.56, 95%CI=0.46-0.67, P<0.00001 respectively).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that conversion increases anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity and wound abscess rates without increasing mortality rate for patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer.

Visceral obesity and short-term outcomes after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Complications after rectal resection are frequent. Recently, methods to assess visceral obesity (VO) have become available as an alternative to measurement of body mass index (BMI). The aim of this study was to examine the association between visceral fat volume (VFV) and the short-term outcomes after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We studied a consecutive series of patients undergoing LLAR at Bispebjerg University Hospital from 01.01.2013 to 01.01.2016. Preoperative VFV was calculated from abdominal CT scans using an automatic segmentation tool. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage (AL). Secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgery, number of lymph nodes harvested, the rates of 30-day complications as well as reoperations, and 1-year survival.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were included. VO was defined as a VFV above the 75 percentile. Thirteen (12.7%) patients developed AL, four (15.4%) of whom were in the VO group (p = 0.900). At least one postoperative complication developed in 38 (37.3%) patients, with no significant difference between the VO and non-VO patients after univariable analysis (42.3% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.702) or multivariable adjustment (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.38-2.65, p = 0.984). VO was significantly associated with an increased incidence of conversion to open surgery (OR 4.30, 95% CI 1.29-14.86, p = 0.018). There was a significant difference in the number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups (mean 23.5 vs. 29.1, p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study on patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection, VO was not associated with development of AL or other complications. However, we found that visceral obesity was associated with an increased risk of conversion to open surgery.