Short Term Postoperative and Oncological Outcomes of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision of Rectal Cancer

Comparison of Therapeutic Effects Between Conventional 2D Laparoscopy and 3D Laparoscopy in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 2D laparoscopy vs 3D laparoscopy for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from their inception to January 2024. Studies investigating different outcomes of colorectal surgery were included. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024504902).

RESULTS

A total of 10 publications were retrieved in this article. The 3D group is associated with a significant improvement in intraoperative blood loss (MD = -8.04, 95% CI = -14.18 to -1.89, P = 0.01, I2 = 55%), operative time (MD = -17.33, 95% CI = -29.15 to -5.51, P = 0.004, I2 = 90%), and postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.23, 95% CI = -0.43 to -0.04, P = 0.02, I2 = 48%) compared to that of patients treated in the 2D group, particularly for rectal cancer patients above three results (MD = -10.36, 95% CI = -15.00 to -5.73, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), (MD = -18.85, 95% CI = -34.88 to -2.82, P = 0.02, I2 = 57%), and (MD = -0.93, 95% CI = -1.53 to -0.34, P = 0.002, I2 = 0%), respectively. There was no significant statistical difference in the time of pass flatus (MD = -0.14, 95% CI = -0.49 to  0.21, P = 0.44, I2 = 79%) and the number of dissected lymph nodes (MD = 0.36, 95% CI = -0.49 to 1.21, P = 0.41, I2 = 45%), but the 3D group had an earlier postoperative pass flatus for rectal cancer patients (MD = -0.46, 95% CI = -0.66 to -0.27, P<0.001, I2 = 0%) and the more number of dissected lymph nodes for colon cancer patients (MD = 1.54, 95% CI = 0.05 to 3.03, P = 0.04, I2 = 69%) than the 2D group. There was no significant difference in postoperative overall complication (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.31, P = 0.71, I2 = 0%) and anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.48 to 1.80, P = 0.83, I2 = 0%) in the two groups, regardless of rectal cancer and colon surgery patients.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that 3D laparoscopy could reduce the amount of blood loss, accelerate postoperative pass flatus, and shorten the operation time and postoperative hospital stay over 2D for radical rectal cancer surgery, without obvious advantage for radical colon cancer surgery. Moreover, 3D laparoscopy increases the number of dissected lymph nodes for radical colon cancer surgery but may not be observed in rectal cancer surgery.

Three-dimensional Versus Two-dimensional Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy has several advantages in gastrointestinal surgery. This systematic review determined whether similar benefits exist for bariatric surgical procedures by systematically searching the MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases. Six studies including 629 patients who underwent 2D (386) and 3D (243) laparoscopic bariatric surgeries were selected. Operative time was significantly shorter in patients undergoing 3D laparoscopic gastric bypass (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.22-0.15). Similarly, a shorter hospital stay was detected both during sleeve gastrectomy (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.70-0.13) and gastric bypass (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.64-0.14) with 3D laparoscopy. The study showed the potential benefit of 3D imaging in preventing intra- and postoperative complications. Despite the limited evidence, surgeons may benefit from 3D laparoscopy during bariatric surgery.

Reasonable Collocation of Two Different Functional 3D Laparoscopes May Improve the Efficiency of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery Using a Synchronous Two-Team Approach?

Background: To investigate the effectiveness of two different functional three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopes in transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 106 patients undergoing taTME of rectal cancer at the Affiliated Nanchong Central Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College between August 2017 and July 2020. Fifty-seven patients used the flexible 3D laparoscope (FTDL) and 49 patients used the rigid 3D laparoscope (RTDL). Results: Transabdominal operation duration in the FTDL group was shorter than in the RTDL group (125.5 ± 52.6 minutes versus 148.8 ± 59.3 minutes, P = .034). However, transanal operation duration in the FTDL group was longer than in the RTDL group (77.3 ± 26.8 minutes versus 104.6 ± 34.1 minutes, P = .000). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the number of harvested lymph nodes, total operation duration, postoperative complications, postoperative hospitalization, and quality of mesorectal specimen (P > .05). Conclusion: Synchronous two-team approach can be widely used in taTME. Making full use of the respective advantages of the two 3D laparoscopes is beneficial to improve the efficiency of taTME surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT03416699.

Outcomes of robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Background

The quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) is regarded as a fundamental key to the oncological outcome of rectal cancer. Robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) and transanal TME (TaTME) were developed to overcome the technical challenges of conventional open TME. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of RLAR versus TaTME for rectal cancer.

Methods

Retrospective data from patients undergoing RLAR or TaTME at a colorectal unit in Singapore were analysed. The primary outcomes were the short-term clinical and pathological results including specimen margins and quality of TME. Secondary outcomes were recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival rates.

Results

A total of 80 patients who underwent either RLAR or TaTME were analysed. The TaTME group had a shorter operating time than the RLAR group (354 versus 481 min respectively; P < 0.001) and fewer stays in the high-dependency and intensive care units (38.1 versus 73.7 per cent; P = 0.010). There was a higher rate of readmissions at 30 days in the TaTME group (19.0 versus 0 per cent; P = 0.006). Specimens from TaTME had greater proximal (14.0 versus 10.0 cm; P = 0.045) and distal (2.50 versus 1.65 cm; P = 0.021) margins. Patients undergoing TaTME had borderline longer DFS (25.9 versus 15.7 months; P = 0.049). Subgroup analysis of patients with (y)pT3–4 tumours showed fewer positive circumferential resection margins with TaTME (0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.019) and improved DFS (25.9 versus 15.7 months; P = 0.017).

Conclusion

Superior margins were obtained with TaTME, especially in locally advanced tumours, although TaTME was associated with a higher readmission rate compared with RLAR.