Circumferential Resection Margin After Laparoscopic and Open Rectal Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study

Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine if minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer is non-inferior to open surgery (OPEN) regarding adequacy of cancer resection in a population based setting.

METHODS

All 9,464 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer 2012-2018 who underwent curative surgery were included from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM < 1 mm) and positive resection margin (R1). Non-inferiority margins used were 2.4% and 4%.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

30- and 90-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, re-operation < 30 days, 30- and 90-day re-admission, length of stay (LOS), distal resection margin < 1 mm and < 12 resected lymph nodes. Analyses were performed by intention-to-treat using unweighted and weighted multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

The CRM was positive in 3.8% of the MIS group and 5.4% of the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.623, -1.622). R1 was recorded in 2.8% of patients in the MIS group and in 4.4% of patients in the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.649, -1.633). There were no differences between the groups in adjusted unweighted and weighted analyses. All analyses demonstrated decreased mortality and re-admissions at 30 and 90 days as well as shorter LOS following MIS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population based setting MIS for rectal cancer was non-inferior to OPEN regarding adequacy of cancer resection with favorable short-term outcomes.

Predictors of operative difficulty in robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

AIM

This study evaluates the relationship of tumour and anatomical features with operative difficulty in robotic low anterior resection performed by four experienced surgeons in a high-volume colorectal cancer practice.

METHODS

Data from 382 patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection by four expert surgeons between January 2016 and June 2019 were included in the analysis. Operating time was used as a measure of operative difficulty. Univariate and multivariate mixed models were used to identify associations between baseline characteristics and operating time, with surgeon as a random effect, thereby controlling for variability in surgeon speed and proficiency. In an exploratory analysis, operative difficulty was defined as conversion to laparotomy, a positive margin or an incomplete mesorectum.

RESULTS

Median operating time was 4.28 h (range 1.95-11.33 h) but varied by surgeon from 3.45 h (1.95-6.10 h) to 5.93 h (3.33-11.33 h) (P < 0.001). Predictors of longer operating time in multivariate analysis were male sex, higher body mass index, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, low tumour height, greater sacral height and larger mesorectal area at the S5 vertebral level. Conversion occurred in two cases (0.5%), and incomplete mesorectum and positive margins were found in nine (2.4%) and 19 (5.0%) patients, respectively. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy and larger pelvic outlet were the only characteristics associated with the exploratory measure of difficulty.

CONCLUSION

Predicting operative difficulty based on easy to identify, preoperative radiological and clinical variables is feasible in robotic anterior resection.

Prognostic implications of surgical specimen quality on the oncological outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery in mid and low rectal cancer

Purpose

Determine differences in pathologic outcomes between laparoscopic (LAP) and open surgery (OPEN) for mid and low rectal cancer and its influence in long-term oncological outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective case matched study at a tertiary institution. Adults with rectal cancer below 12 cm from the anal verge operated between January 2005 and September 2018 were included. Primary outcomes were quality of specimen, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local recurrence (LR).

Results

The study included 311 patients, LAP = 108 (34.7%), OPEN = 203 (65,3%). A successful resection was accomplished in 81% of the LAP group and in 84.5% of the OPEN (p = 0.505). No differences in free distal margin (LAP = 100%, OPEN = 97.5%; p = 0.156) or circumferential resection margin (LAP = 95.2%, OPEN = 93.2%; p = 0.603) were observed. However, mesorectum quality was incomplete in 16.2% for LAP and in 8.1% for OPEN (p = 0.048). OS was 91.1% for LAP and 81.1% for OPEN (p = 0.360). DFS was 81.4% for LAP and 77.5% for OPEN (p = 0.923). Overall, LR was 2.3% without differences between groups.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic approach could affect the quality of surgical specimen due to technical aspects. However, if principles of surgical oncology are respected, minor pathologic differences in the quality of the mesorectum may not influence on the long-term oncologic outcomes.

Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and "Micro Hand S" robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The Micro Hand S robot is a new surgical tool that has been applied to total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer in our center. In this study, we compared the operative outcomes, functional outcomes and learning curves of the Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME).

METHODS

A total of 40 patients who underwent RTME and 65 who underwent LTME performed by a single surgeon between July 2015 and November 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Clinicopathologic characteristics, operative and functional outcomes, and learning curves were compared between the two groups. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum method and two stages (Phase 1, Phase 2) were identified and analyzed. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months.

RESULTS

The clinicopathologic characteristics of the two groups were similar. The learning curve was 17 cases for RTME and 34 cases for LTME. Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with less blood loss (148.2 vs. 195.0 ml, p = 0.022), and shorter length of hospital stay (9.5 vs. 12.2 days, p = 0.017), even during the learning period. With the accumulation of experience, the operative time decreased significantly from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (RTME, 360.6 vs. 323.5 min, p = 0.009; LTME, 338.1 vs. 301.9 min, p = 0.005), whereas other outcomes did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME is safe and feasible even during the learning period, with outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery but superior in terms of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and learning curve. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04836741, retrospectively registered on 5 April 2021.

Short-term outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in Denmark - a prospective multicentre study

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term surgical and oncological outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer during the implementation phase of this procedure in Denmark.

METHOD

This is a retrospective review of prospectively recorded data. Registration was initiated by the Scientific Council of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG.dk) in order to assess the quality of care during the implementation of TaTME. Pre-, intra- and postoperative data including early recurrences were recorded at the operating centres.

RESULTS

From August 2016 to April 2019, 115 TaTME procedures were registered. Patients were predominantly male (74%) with mid-rectal (88%) tumours. The level of surgical complications was comparable to previous nationwide results. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 6/109 (5.5%). One urethral injury occurred. The plane of dissection was mesorectal in 60% of cases, intramesorectal in 28% and muscularis in 12%. Nonmicroradicality was seen in 8% (R1, 6%; R2, 2%). Four local recurrences occurred after a median of 23 months of follow-up. One of these was multifocal.

CONCLUSION

In an implementation phase where patient selection is expected, surgical and oncological results after TaTME were comparable to those of other approaches reported in the literature.

Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews

Regarding the surgical approaches for rectal cancer, many techniques have been reported in randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and reviews of comparisons between two techniques, e.g. open surgery vs laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery vs robotic surgery, or laparoscopic surgery vs transanal total mesorectal excision. Since robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision were developed after laparoscopic surgery had become an established minimally invasive technique, they have each been compared with laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, a review was performed to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision, and to perform such comparisons among ≥3 of the above mentioned approaches, in the expectation that this review will serve as a reference for aiding treatment selection in future. The results of the current review suggest that all of the examined procedures have advantages and disadvantages, but that there are no decisive factors that could be used to select one procedure over any other. At the present time it cannot be demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, transanal total mesorectal excision, or open surgery is superior to the other techniques, and it is important to select the best technique for each patient from among those that a surgeon can perform. It is also important to maintain a flexible attitude that allows new techniques to be adopted as needed in the future.