Minimally Invasive Versus Open Low Anterior Resection: Equivalent Survival in a National Analysis of 14,033 Patients With Rectal Cancer

Comparison of a robotic surgery program for rectal cancer: short- and long-term results from a comparative, retrospective study between two laparoscopic and robotic reference centers

BACKGROUND

It is assumed that robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) may facilitate complex pelvic dissection for rectal cancer compared to the laparoscopic-assisted resection (LAR). The aim of this study was to compare perioperative morbidity, short- and long-term oncologic, and functional outcomes between the RAS and LAR approaches.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2021, all rectal cancers operated on by (LAR) or (RAS) were retrospectively reviewed in two colorectal surgery centers.

RESULTS

A total of 197 patients were included in the study, with 70% in the LAR group and 30% in the RAS group. The tumor location and stage were identical in both groups (not significant = NS). The overall postoperative mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups. (0% LAR; 0.5% RAS; NS). The postoperative morbidity was similar between the two groups (60% LAR vs 57% RAS; NS). The number of early surgical re-interventions within the first 30 days was similar (10% for the LAR group and 3% for the RAS group; NS). The rate of complete TME was similar (88% for the LAR group and 94% for the RAS group; NS). However, the rate of circumferential R1 was significantly higher in the LAR group (13%) compared to the RAS group (2%) (p = 0.009). The 3-year recurrence rate did not differ between the two groups (77% for both groups; NS). After a mean follow-up of three years, the incidence of anterior resection syndrome was significantly lower in the LAR group compared to the RAS group (54 vs 76%; p = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a RAS was found to be reliable for oncologic outcomes and morbidity. However, the expected benefits for functional outcomes were not observed. Therefore, the added value of RAS for rectal cancer needs to be reassessed in light of new laparoscopic technologies and patient management options.

Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS).

Materials and methods

The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023.

Results

Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.

Essential updates 2020/2021: Advancing precision medicine for comprehensive rectal cancer treatment

In the paradigm shift related to rectal cancer treatment, we have to understand a variety of new emerging topics to provide appropriate treatment for individual patients as precision medicine. However, information on surgery, genomic medicine, and pharmacotherapy is highly specialized and subdivided, creating a barrier to achieving thorough knowledge. In this review, we summarize the perspective for rectal cancer treatment and management from the current standard-of-care to the latest findings to help optimize treatment strategy.

Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

The minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision is a complex and challenging procedure due to technical and anatomical issues which could impair postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes, especially in a defined subgroup of patients. The results from recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery are still conflicting and trans-anal bottom-up approaches have recently been developed. Robotic surgery represents the latest consistent innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery that may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy thanks to an enhanced dexterity, especially in deep narrow operative fields such as the pelvis. Results from population-based multicenter studies have shown the potential advantages of robotic surgery when compared to its laparoscopic counterpart in terms of reduced conversions, complication rates and length of stay. Costs, often advocated as one of the main drawbacks of robotic surgery, should be thoroughly evaluated including both the direct and indirect costs, with the latter having the potential of counterbalancing the excess of expenditure directly related to the purchase and maintenance of robotic equipment. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required to better delineate the advantages of the robotic platform, especially in the subset of most complex and technically challenging patients from both an anatomical and oncological standpoint.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of transanal TME compared with transabdominal TME for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to have favorable surgical and pathological outcomes. However, the evidence on survival outcomes remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare long-term oncologic outcomes of TaTME with transabdominal TME for rectal cancer.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Data were pooled, and overall effect size was calculated using random-effects models. Outcome measures were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local and distant recurrence.

Results

We included 11 nonrandomized studies that examined 2,143 patients for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups in OS, DFS, and local and distant recurrence with a RR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.39–1.09, I² = 0%), 0.79 (95% CI 0.57–1.10, I² = 0%), 1.14 (95% CI 0.44–2.91, I² = 66%), and 0.75 (95% CI 0.40–1.41, I² = 0%), respectively.

Conclusion

In terms of long-term oncologic outcomes, TaTME may be an alternative to transabdominal TME in patients with rectal cancer. Well-designed randomized trials are warranted to further verify these results.

Updates on Robotic CME for Right Colon Cancer: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Background. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is a surgical technique introduced with the aim of ameliorating the oncologic results of colectomy. Various experiences have demonstrated favorable oncologic results of CME in comparison with standard colectomy, in which the principles of CME are not respected. The majority of the literature refers to open or laparoscopic CME. This review analyses current evidence regarding robotic CME for right colectomy. Methods. An extensive Medline (Pub Med) search for relevant case series, restricted to papers published in English, was performed, censoring video vignettes and case reports. Results. Fourteen studies (ten retrospective, four comparative series of robotic versus laparoscopic CME) were included, with patient numbers ranging from 20 to 202. Four different approaches to CME are described, which also depend on the robotic platform utilized. Intraoperative and early clinical results were good, with a low conversion and anastomotic leak rate and a majority of Clavien–Dindo complications being Grades I and II. Oncologic adequacy of the surgical specimens was found to be good, although a homogeneous histopathologic evaluation was not provided. Conclusions. Further large studies are warranted to define long-term oncologic results of robotic right colectomy with CME and its eventual benefits in comparison to laparoscopy.

[Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results]

BACKGROUND

The number of oncological robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections is rapidly increasing in Germany and worldwide; however, the indications, technique and potential limitations of this surgical technique are still discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The standardized modular surgical technique, the results in our clinic and the currently published evidence are presented.

RESULTS

The procedure should be divided into seven modules in terms of standardization and teaching. After the learning curve there are principally no limitations or contraindications. The robotic-assisted approach is superior to open surgery in the following points: blood loss, lymph node harvest, negative circumferential resection margin (CRM), complication rate and length of hospital stay. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy the conversion rate and postoperative sexual and bladder function disorders are decreased. The operating time is longer.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer resection is firmly established and standardized. The technique is superior to open surgery and conventional laparoscopy in some important aspects and is developing into the standard for this disease.

Optimizing outcomes in colorectal surgery: cost and clinical analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to colon resection

The use of robotics in colorectal surgery has been steadily increasing, however, reported longer operative times and increased cost has limited its widespread adoption. We investigated the cost of elective colorectal surgery based on type of anatomic resection and the impact of a standardized protocol for robotic colectomies. A retrospective review was conducted of 279 elective colectomies at a single institution between 2013 and 2017. Clinical outcomes and detailed cost data were compared based on open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgical approach and stratified by anatomic resection. Robotic, laparoscopic and open colectomy rates were 35, 34 and 31%, respectively. While total costs were similar in robotic and laparoscopic surgery, anatomic resection stratification showed that low anterior resection (LAR) was significantly cheaper ($14,093 vs $17,314). When a standardized surgical protocol was implemented for robotic colectomies, significant reductions in operative times, length of stay, total cost, and operative cost were observed. Robotic surgery may be most cost effective for elective LAR compared to laparoscopic or open approaches. A standardized surgical protocol for robotic surgery may help reduce costs by reducing operative times, operating rooms expenditure, and lengths of stay.

Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A National Perspective on Short-term Outcomes and Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Prior randomized trials showed comparable short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP) for rectal cancer. We hypothesize that short-term outcomes for MIP have improved as surgeons have become more experienced with this technique.

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection (APR) or low anterior resection (LAR) were included from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2016-2018). Patients were stratified based on intent-to-treat protocol: open (O-APR/LAR), laparoscopic (L-APR/LAR), robotic (R-APR/LAR), and hybrid (H-APR/LAR). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the impact of operative approach on 30-day morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 4471 procedures were performed (43.41% APR and 36.59% LAR); O-APR 42.72%, L-APR 20.99%, R-APR 16.79%, and H-APR 19.51%; O-LAR 31.48%, L-LAR 26.34%, R-LAR 17.48%, and H-LAR 24.69%. Robotic APR and LAR were associated with shortest length of stay and significantly lower conversion rate. After adjusting for other factors, lap, robotic and hybrid APR and LAR were associated with decreased risk of overall morbidity when compared to open approach. R-APR and H-APR were associated with decreased risk of serious morbidity. No difference in the risk of serious morbidity was observed between the four LAR groups.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate selection of patients for MIP can result in better short-term outcomes, and consideration for MIP surgery should be made.

Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: evolution over a decade

BACKGROUND

Despite reports of increasing adoption of robotics in colorectal surgery worldwide, data regarding its uptake in Australasia are lacking. This study examines the trends of robotic colorectal surgery in Australia during the last 10 years.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery with the da Vinci robotic platform between 2010 and 2019 were obtained. Overall, numbers of specific colorectal procedures across Australia were obtained from the Medicare Benefit Schedule data over the same period. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to determine the statistical trends of overall and specific robotic colorectal procedures over time.

RESULTS

A total of 6110 robotic general surgery procedures were performed across Australia during the study period. Of these, 3522 (57.6%) were robotic colorectal procedures. An increasing trend of overall robotic colorectal procedures was seen over 10 years (Pearson's coefficient of 0.875; P = 0.001). While this applied to both the public and private sectors, 90.7% of the procedures were undertaken in the private sector. Restorative rectal resections, rectopexies, and right hemicolectomies accounted for 82.6% of the robotic colorectal procedures performed during this period with an increasing trend seen over time for each intervention. Moreover, a robotic approach was utilized in 12.5%, 41.0% and 9.0% of all restorative rectal resections, rectopexies and right hemicolectomies undertaken in Australia during 2019, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery has increased dramatically in Australia over the last 10 years, especially in the private sector. Penetration of robotic colorectal surgery in the public healthcare system will require focussed cost-benefit evaluations and governmental investment.

Laparoscopic Approach to Rectal Cancer-The New Standard?

Minimally invasive surgery has revolutionized the way surgeons perform colorectal surgery, and new technologies continually upend the way surgeons view and operate within the deep pelvis. Among other benefits, it is associated with decreased lengths of stay, wound and surgical site infections, pain scores, and has an overall lower complication rate vs. open surgery (1). Recently, however, the role of minimally invasive surgery has been called into question in the effective and safe treatment of rectal cancer. This manuscript will outline the history of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, examine evidence detailing its safety (compared with alternatives), and discuss important aspects of use, most notably the considerable learning curve required to achieve proficiency, the extent of its current use, and potential pitfalls. The current evidence suggests minimally invasive surgery is a very safe way to treat rectal cancer when performed by experienced and specialty trained surgeons.

Short- and long-term outcomes for transvaginal specimen extraction versus minilaparotomy after robotic anterior resection for colorectal cancer: a mono-institution retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer resection surgery with transvaginal specimen extraction is becoming increasingly accepted and used by surgeons. However, few publications on robotic anterior sigmoid colon and rectal cancer resection with transvaginal specimen extraction (TVSE) have been reported, and a clinical outcome comparison between conventional robotic minilaparotomy (LAP) and transvaginal specimen extraction in anterior sigmoid colon and rectal cancer resection has not been performed. The current study compared the short- and long-term outcomes of TVSE and LAP for sigmoid colon cancer and rectal cancer in a mono-institution.

METHODS

From December 2014 to October 2018, 45 patients who underwent TVSE and 45 patients who underwent LAP matched by tumor location, tumor stage, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, gender, and age at the same period were included in the current study. The short- and long-term outcomes of TVSE and LAP were discussed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in patient characteristics. For the short-term outcomes, the operative time in the TVSE group was longer than that in the LAP group, and the postoperative pain and additional analgesia were lower in the TVSE group. Patients in the TVSE group required slightly less time to pass first flatus. There were no significant differences in overall complications, time to regular diet, length of hospital stay after surgery, estimated blood loss, or pathological outcomes. For long-term outcomes, the 3-year overall survival (94.9% vs. 91.7%, p = 0.702) and 3-year disease-free survival (88.4% vs. 86.2%, p = 0.758) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The robotic TVSE is safe and feasible in selected sigmoid/upper rectal cancer patients with tumor diameter < 5 cm. This approach has slightly better short-term outcomes in terms of less postoperative pain and less analgesic requirements without any significant difference in long-term outcomes.

Evolution of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: update from the national cancer database

BACKGROUND

As the use of minimally invasive techniques in colorectal surgery has become increasingly prevalent, concerns remain about the oncologic effectiveness and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive low anterior resection (MI-LAR) for the treatment of rectal cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

The 2010-2015 National Cancer Database (NCDB) Participant Data Use File was queried for patients undergoing elective open LAR (OLAR) or MI-LAR for rectal adenocarcinoma. A 1:1 propensity match was performed on the basis of demographics, comorbidity, and tumor characteristics. Outcomes were compared between groups and Cox proportional hazard modeling was performed to identify independent predictors of mortality. A subset analysis was performed on high-volume academic centers.

RESULTS

35,809 patients undergoing LAR were identified of whom 18,265 (51.0%) underwent MI-LAR. After propensity matching, patients receiving MI-LAR were less likely to have a positive circumferential radial margin (CRM) (5.5% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.0094) or a positive distal margin (3.6% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.0022) and had decreased 90-day all-cause mortality (2.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.0238). MI-LAR resulted in decreased hospital length of stay (5 vs. 6 days, p < 0.0001) but a greater rate of 30-day readmission (7.6% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.0054). Long-term overall survival was improved with MI-LAR (79% vs. 76%, p < 0.0001). Cox proportional hazard modeling demonstrated a decreased risk of mortality with MI-LAR (HR 0.859, 95% CI 0.788-0.937).

CONCLUSION

MI-LAR is associated with improvement in CRM clearance and long-term survival. In the hands of experienced surgeons with advanced laparoscopy skills, MI-LAR appears safe and effective technique for the management of rectal cancer.

Short-term and Medium-term Outcomes of Low Midline and Low Transverse Incisions in Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery

Purpose

Limited data exist on the use of low midline and transverse incisions for specimen extraction or stoma sites in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS). We compared the short-term and medium-term outcomes of these incisions and assessed whether wound complications in specimen extraction sites (SES) are increased by specimen extraction through the stoma site (SESS) in LRCS.

Methods

From March 2010 to December 2017, 189 patients who underwent LRCS and specimen extraction through low abdominal incisions were divided into 2 groups: midline (n = 102) and transverse (n = 87), and perioperative outcomes were compared.

Results

The midline group showed a higher frequency of temporary stoma formation (P = 0.001) and splenic flexure mobilization (P < 0.001) than the transverse group. The overall incisional hernia and wound infection rates in the SES were 21.6% and 25.5%, respectively, in the midline group and 26.4% and 17.2%, respectively, in the transverse group (P = 0.494 and P = 0.232, respectively). In patients who underwent SESS, the incisional hernia and wound infection rates of SES after stoma closure were 39.1% and 43.5%, respectively, in the midline group, and 35.5% and 22.6%, respectively, in the transverse group (P = 0.840 and P = 0.035, respectively).

Conclusion

In terms of incisional hernia and wound infection at the SES, a low midline incision may be used as a low transverse incision in patients without temporary stoma in LRCS. However, considering the high wound complication rates after stoma closure in patients with SESS in this study, SESS should be performed with caution in LRCS.

An observational study of patho-oncological outcomes of various surgical methods in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single center analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with or without neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the treatment for rectal cancer (RC). Recently, the use of conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic-assisted surgery (RS) has been on a steady increase cases. However, various oncological outcomes from different surgical approaches are still under investigation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study comprising 300 consecutive RC patients who underwent various techniques of TME (RS, n = 88; LS, n = 37; Open surgery, n = 175) at a single center of real world data to compare the pathological and oncological outcomes, with a median follow-up of 48 months.

RESULTS

Upon multivariate analysis, histologic grade (P = 0.016), and stage (P < 0.001) were the independent factors of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis determined RS, early pathologic stage, negative CRM involvement, and pathologic complete response to be significantly associated with better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (all P < 0.05). Multivariable analyses observed the surgical method (P = 0.037), histologic grade (P = 0.006), and CRM involvement (P = 0.043) were the independent factors of DFS, whereas histologic grade (P = 0.011) and pathologic stage (P = 0.022) were the independent prognostic variables of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined that RS TME is feasible because it has less CRM involvement and better oncological outcomes than the alternatives have. The significant factors influencing CRM and prognosis depended on the histologic grade, tumor depth, and pre-operative CCRT. RS might be an acceptable option owing to the favorable oncological outcomes for patients with RC undergoing TME.

Association between surgical approach and survival following resection of abdominopelvic malignancies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Recent studies demonstrating decreased survival following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer have generated concern regarding oncologic efficacy of MIS. Our objective was to evaluate the association between surgical approach and 5-year survival following resection of abdominopelvic malignancies.

METHODS

Patients with stage I or II adenocarcinoma of the prostate, colon, rectum, and stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer from 2010-2015 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. The association between surgical approach and 5-year survival was assessed using propensity-score-matched cohorts. Distributions were compared using logistic regression. Hazard ratio for death was estimated using Cox proportional-hazard models.

RESULTS

The rate of deaths at 5 years was 3.4% following radical prostatectomy, 22.9% following colectomy, 18.6% following proctectomy, and 6.8% following radical hysterectomy. Open surgery was associated with worse survival following radical prostatectomy (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33; P = .005), colectomy (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39-1.51; P < .001), and proctectomy (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.50; P = .002); however, open surgery was associated with improved survival following radical hysterectomy (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.82; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that MIS is an acceptable approach in selected patients with prostate, colon, and rectal cancers, while concerns regarding MIS resection of cervical cancer appear warranted.

What are the results of laparoscopic re-operative rectal surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Reoperative rectal surgery is challenging, performed selectively by experienced colorectal surgeons. The minimally invasive approach has not been well defined. This study reviewed the results of laparoscopy in this challenging setting.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent trans-abdominal re-operative rectal surgery from 2010 to 2019 was performed.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients [35 females (45%); BMI 25kg/m2) were included. Reasons for reoperation were recurrent cancer in 18 (43%) patients and anastomotic failure in 57 (73%). Twenty-two (28%) had laparoscopic surgery and 4 had attempted laparoscopy converted to laparotomy. A higher success rate was noted for laparoscopy with prior laparoscopic surgery. Benefits of laparoscopy included significant reduction in length of stay (6.7 vs 9.7 days, p = 0.012) and abdominal superficial surgical site infection (0% vs 25%, p < 0.001) and higher rate of achieving bowel continuity compared to laparotomy (77% vs 50%, p = 0.021) CONCLUSIONS: Reoperative laparoscopic rectal surgery is safe and feasible in the context of a high-volume laparoscopic surgeon with substantial experience in redo proctectomies. It offers clear benefits including decreased surgical site infection rates and length of stay.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of elective rectal resection for rectal cancer in adults by robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Technological advantages of robotic surgery favor precise dissection in narrow spaces. However, the evidence base driving recommendations for the use of robotic surgery in rectal cancer primarily hinges on observational data.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (until August 2016) comparing robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Data on the following endpoints were evaluated: circumferential margin status, mesorectal grade, number of lymph nodes harvested, rate of conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, and operative time. Data were summarized as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods.

RESULTS

Five trials were eligible, including 334 robotic and 337 laparoscopic surgery cases. Meta-analysis showed that RS was associated with lower conversion rate (7.3%; 4 studies, 544 participants, RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.97, P = 0.04, I = 0%) and longer operating time (MD 38.43 minutes, 95% CI 31.84-45.01: P < 0.00001) compared with laparoscopic surgery. Perioperative mortality, rate of circumferential margin involvement (2 studies, 489 participants, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39-1.73), and lymph nodes collected (mean 17.4 Lymph Nodes; 5 trials, 674 patients, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.12) were similar. The quality of the evidence was moderate for most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of moderate quality supports that robotic surgery for rectal cancer produces similar perioperative outcomes of oncologic procedure adequacy to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery portraits lower rate of conversion to open surgery, while operating time is significantly longer than by laparoscopic approach.

Impact of surgical approach on short-term oncological outcomes and recovery following low anterior resection for rectal cancer

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the influence of operative approach for low anterior resection (LAR) on oncological and postoperative outcomes. Minimally invasive surgical approaches are increasingly used for the treatment of rectal cancer with mixed outcomes.

METHOD

We compared patients undergoing LAR in the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2015 by surgical approach. Multivariable regression was used to identify risk factors associated with conversion rate, prolonged length of stay (LOS) and 30-day unplanned readmission.

RESULTS

During the study period, 41 282 patients underwent LAR: 6035 robotic-assisted (RLAR) (14.6%), 13 826 laparoscopic (LLAR) (33.5%) and 21 421 open (OLAR) (51.9%). In propensity score matched analysis, RLAR compared to LLAR was associated with shorter LOS (6.3 vs 6.8 days, P < 0.0001), lower risk of prolonged LOS (22.1% vs 25.6%, P < 0.0001) and lower rate of conversion to open (7.5% vs 14.95%, P < 0.0001). Compared to OLAR, RLAR had shorter LOS (6.3 vs 7.8 days, P < 0.0001) and less prolonged LOS (14.1% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, for conversion to open, the laparoscopic approach was one of the risk factors; for prolonged LOS, conversion to open and non-robotic approaches (i.e. LLAR and OLAR) were risk factors; and for unplanned 30-day readmission, conversions and prolonged LOS were risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with rectal cancer, RLAR shows recovery benefits over both open and laparoscopic LAR with reduced conversion to open compared with LLAR and less prolonged LOS compared with LLAR and OLAR. RLAR is associated with short-term oncological outcomes comparable to OLAR, supporting its use in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial: protocol for a parallel cohort trial of outcomes using surgical techniques for total mesorectal excision with low anterior resection in high-risk rectal cancer patients

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard of care for rectal cancer, which can be combined with low anterior resection (LAR) in patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. The narrow pelvic space and difficulties in obtaining adequate exposure make surgery technically challenging. Four techniques are used to perform the surgery: open laparotomy, laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery and transanal surgery. Comparative data for these techniques are required to provide clinical data on the surgical management of rectal cancers.

METHODS

The Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial will be a prospective, observational, case-matched, four-cohort, multicentre trial designed to study TME with LAR using open laparotomy, laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery or transanal surgery in high-surgical-risk patients with mid-to-low non-metastatic rectal cancer. All surgeries will be performed by surgeons experienced in at least one of the techniques. Oncological, morbidity and functional outcomes will be assessed in a composite primary outcome, with success defined as circumferential resection margin ≥ 1 mm, TME Grade III and minimal postoperative morbidity (absence of Clavien-Dindo Grade III-IV complications within 30 days after surgery). Secondary end-points will include the co-primary end-points over the long term (2 years), quality of surgery, quality of life, length of hospital stay, operative time and rate of unplanned conversions.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first trial to study all four surgical techniques currently used for TME with LAR in a specific group of high-risk patients. The knowledge obtained will contribute towards helping physicians determine the advantages of each technique and which may be the most appropriate for their patients.

A Comparison of Pathologic Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Resections for Rectal Cancer Using the ACS-NSQIP Proctectomy-Targeted Database: a Propensity Score Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate regarding the benefits of minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to compare pathologic outcomes of patients who underwent rectal cancer resection by open surgery, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) proctectomy-targeted database.

METHODS

All patients from the 2016 ACS-NSQIP proctectomy-targeted database who underwent elective proctectomy for rectal cancer were identified. Patients were divided into three groups based on initial operative approach: open surgery, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery. Pathologic and 30-day clinical outcomes were then compared between the groups. A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounders, and adjusted odds ratios for pathologic outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 578 patients were included-211 (36.5%) in the open group, 213 (36.9%) in the laparoscopic group, and 154 (26.6%) in the robotic group. Conversion to open surgery was more common among laparoscopic cases compared to robotic cases (15.0% vs. 6.5%, respectively; p = 0.011). Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) was observed in 4.7%, 3.8%, and 5.2% (p = 0.79) of open, laparoscopic, and robotic resections, respectively. Propensity score adjusted odds ratios for positive CRM (open surgery as a reference group) were 0.70 (0.26-1.85, p = 0.47) for laparoscopy and 1.03 (0.39-2.70, p = 0.96) for robotic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer surgery does not appear to confer worse pathologic outcomes.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence available on the safety as well as effectiveness of robotic resection as compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer was collected. Eligible trials that analyzed probabilistic hazard ratios (HR) for endpoints of interest (including perioperative morbidity) and postoperative complications were included in our review.

RESULTS

A total of six studies were included based on the present inclusion criteria. The pooled data showed that R-TME appeared to have association with remarkable reduction in the postoperative morbidity rate as compared to L-TME. Moreover, R-TME was also linked to lower conversion, decreased lymph node number, and longer operation time compared with L-TME. However, there was no difference in hospital stay, positive range of circumferential resection and blood loss between the two study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic rectal cancer surgery provides favorable outcomes and is considered as a safe surgical technique in terms of postoperative oncological safety. Like laparoscopic TME surgery, robotic surgery may be a valid alternative and complementary approach with beneficial effects on minimally-invasive surgery.

Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Analysis of a Prospective Database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncological outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) at an NCI designated cancer center.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The effectiveness of laparoscopic TME could not be established, but the robotic-assisted approach may hold some promise, with improved visualization and ergonomics for pelvic dissection. Oncological outcome data is presently lacking.

METHODS

Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between April 2009 and April 2016 via a robotic approach were identified from a prospective single-institution database. The circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin, and TME completeness rates were determined. Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-free survival and overall survival was performed for all patients treated with curative intent.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients underwent robotic proctectomy during the study period. Robotic surgery was performed initially by 1 surgeon with 3 additional surgeons progressively transitioning from open to robotic during the study period with annual increase in the total number of cases performed robotically. Seven patients had involved circumferential resection margins (2.5%), and there were no positive distal or proximal resection margins. One hundred eighty-six patients had TME quality assessed, and only 1 patient (0.5%) had an incomplete TME. Eighty-three patients were followed up for a minimum of 3 years, with a local recurrence rate of 2.4%, and a distant recurrence rate of 16.9%. Five-year disease-free survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 82%, and 5-year overall survival was 87%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer can be performed with good short and medium term oncological outcomes in selected patients.

Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Rectum Amputation: a Clinical, Intraoperative, and Short-term Outcome Comparative Study

Objective: To evaluate and compare laparoscopic and conventional open rectum amputation procedures using clinical, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological criteria.

Methods: Fifty-nine patients with lower rectal and anorectal cancer were included in a retrospective study, conducted between 2014 and 2017. Patients underwent open or laparoscopic rectum amputation surgery and were divided into two groups: group 1 – laparoscopic amputation group (LAG) and group 2 – open amputation group (OAG). The clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes and oncological results were compared between the two groups.

Results: We found a significantly smaller intraoperative blood loss (325 mL vs. 538.29 mL, p = 0.0002), earlier return of bowel motility (2.41 days vs. 3.10 days, p = 0.036), shorter hospital stays (10.08 days vs. 12.66 days, p = 0.03), and a higher number of lymph nodes removed during surgery (12.33 nodes for LAG vs. 9.98 nodes for OAG, p = 0.049). In the open surgery group we found shorter durations of surgery (199.58 minutes for LAG vs. 157.87 minutes for OAG, p = 0.0046).

Conclusion: Laparoscopic rectum amputation is a technically demanding procedure. The present study demonstrates the benefits and disadvantages of this surgery, with comparable clinical, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological results compared to the conventional open rectum amputation procedure.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan

PURPOSE

Scientific evidence supporting robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remains inconclusive because most previous reports were retrospective case series or case-control studies, with few reports focusing on long-term oncological outcomes with a large volume of patients. The aim of this study was to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of a large number of consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RALS in a single high-volume center.

METHODS

The records of 551 consecutive patients who underwent RALS for rectal adenocarcinoma between December 2011 and March 2017 were examined to reveal the short-term outcomes. The oncological outcomes of the 204 patients who underwent surgery between December 2011 and March 2014 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Most patients had tumors located in the lower or mid-rectum (86.0%). Only 7.6% of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed for 191 patients (34.7%). The median operative time was 257 min, median blood loss was 10 mL, and no transfusions were needed. No conversion to open surgery was necessary. Eighteen patients (3.3%) had Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Six patients (1.1%) had positive resection margins. The mean follow-up duration of the 204 patients was 43.6 ± 9.8 (months). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 100%/100%/100%/not reached, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 93.6%/75.0%/77.6%/ not reached, respectively. The rate of local recurrence was 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that RALS is technically feasible for rectal cancer and has good short- and long-term outcomes.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted right colectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted right colectomy (RRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published studies. All published literature for comparative studies reporting preoperative outcomes of RRC and LRC were searched. We searched the databases included Cochrane Library of Clinical Comparative Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) from 1973 to 2018. The censor date was up to January 2018. Operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, conversion rates to open surgery, postoperative complications, and related outcomes were evaluated. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using Stata 12.0 software. A total of 7769 patients with colon cancer enrolled in 13 trials were divided into a study group (n = 674) and a control group (n = 7095). Meta-analysis suggested significantly greater length of hospital stay in the LRC group [MD = -0.85; 95% CI: -1.07 to -0.63; P < 0.00001]. Robotic surgery was also associated with a significantly lower complication rate [OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.01; P = 0.05]. There were statistically significant differences between the groups in estimated blood loss [MD = -16.89; 95% CI: -24.80 to -8.98; P < 0.00001] and the rate of intraoperative conversion to open surgery [OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.75; P = 0.008)], but these differences were not clinically relevant. The recovery of bowel function in two groups is no significant differences [MD = -0.58, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.20, P = 0.0008]. However, operation times [MD = 43.61, 95% CI: 39.11 to 48.10, P < 0.00001] were longer for RRC than for LRC. Compared to LRC, RRC was associated with reduced estimated blood loss, reduced postoperative complications, longer operation times. Recovery of bowel function and other perioperative outcomes were equivalent between the two surgeries.

Transanal transabdominal TME: how far can we push it?

Over many decades, advances in surgical technology, such as the use of the electrocautery Bovie, development of minimally invasive and advanced endoscopic platforms and the ability to create and maintain pneumorectum have propelled surgical techniques forward to today, with development of the transanal total mesorectal excision TME (taTME) for en bloc resection of rectal cancers. The transanal platform offers, for now, a viable alternative to perform safe and oncologically sound TME, especially favorable in cases of low rectal lesions in a narrow pelvis post neoadjuvant treatment. The aspiration of the colorectal community remains to continue to push the operative boundaries whilst maintaining safe oncological principals with the best possible functional outcomes for patients. In this article we review this evolving technique and focus on future directions.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: the future?

Robotic technology currently offers some technical advantages in pelvic dissection compared with competing minimally invasive techniques, and adoption for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer is rapidly increasing worldwide. While there are some early data demonstrating modest improvement in patient outcomes, benefits in terms of long-term oncological outcomes, as well as potential improvements in surgeon-centered outcomes such as fatigue and repetitive stress injury are actively being investigated. Rapid innovation, with the impending release of several new robotic platforms, is likely to further expand the application of these technologies, improve on current limitations, and reduce capital and consumable costs. It is imperative that, as the technology develops and adoption increases further, clinician and research led programs drive safe implementation with a patient-first approach.

Comparison of complication and conversion rates between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer: which patients and providers could benefit most from robotic-assisted surgery?

AIMS

To compare (1) complication and (2) conversion rates to open surgery (OS) from laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic-assisted surgery (RA) for rectal cancer patients who underwent rectal resection. (3) To identify patient, physician, and hospital predictors of conversion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A US-based database study was conducted utilizing the 2012-2014 Premier Healthcare Data, including rectal cancer patients ≥18 with rectal resection. ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedural codes were utilized to identify surgical approaches, conversions to OS, and surgical complications. Propensity score matching on patient, surgeon, and hospital level characteristics was used to create comparable groups of RA\LS patients (n = 533 per group). Predictors of conversion from LS and RA to OS were identified with stepwise logistic regression in the unmatched sample.

RESULTS

Post-match results suggested comparable perioperative complication rates (RA 29% vs LS 29%; p = .7784); whereas conversion rates to OS were 12% for RA vs 29% for LS (p < .0001). Colorectal surgeons (RA 9% vs LS 23%), general surgeons (RA 13% vs LS 35%), and smaller bed-size hospitals (RA 14% vs LS 33%) have reduced conversion rates for RA vs LS (p < .0001). Statistically significant predictors of conversion included LS, non-colorectal surgeon, and smaller bed-size hospitals.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective observational study limitations apply. Analysis of the hospital administrative database was subject to the data captured in the database and the accuracy of coding. Propensity score matching limitations apply. RA and LS groups were balanced with respect to measured patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to LS, RA offers a higher probability of completing a successful minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer patients undergoing rectal resection without exacerbating complications. Male, obese, or moderately-to-severely ill patients had higher conversion rates. While colorectal surgeons had lower conversion rates from RA than LS, the reduction was magnified for general surgeons and smaller bed-size hospitals.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: A Novel Approach to Rectal Surgery

Less invasive approaches continue to be explored and refined for diseases of the colon and rectum. The current gold standard for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer, total mesorectal excision (TME), is a technically precise yet demanding procedure with outcomes measured by both oncologic and functional outcomes (including bowel, urinary, and sexual). To date, the minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer has not yet been perfected, leaving ample opportunity for rectal surgeons to innovate. Transanal TME has recently emerged as a safe and effective technique for both benign and malignant diseases of the rectum. While widespread acceptance of this surgical approach remains tempered at this time due to lack of long-term oncologic outcome data, short-term outcomes are promising and there is great excitement surrounding the promise of this technique.

Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopy for advanced-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the operative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic (LAR) versus open anterior rectal resection (OAR) for patients with pT4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

This is a multicenter propensity score matching (PSM) study of patients undergoing elective curative-intent LAR or OAR for pT4 rectal cancer (TNM stage II/III/IV) between 2005 and 2015.

RESULTS

In total, 137 patients were included in the analysis. After PSM, demographic, clinical and tumor characteristics were similar between the 52 LAR and the 52 OAR patients. Overall, 52 tumors were located in the high rectum, 25 in the mid-rectum and 27 in the low rectum. Multivisceral resection was performed in 26.9% of LAR and 30.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.829). Conversion was required in 11 LAR patients (21.2%). The LAR group showed significantly shorter time to flatus (3.13 vs. 4.97 days, p = 0.001), time to regular diet (3.59 vs. 6.36 days, p < 0.0001) and hospital stay (15.49 vs. 17.96 days, p = 0.002) compared to the OAR group. The 90-day morbidity and mortality were not different between groups. In the majority of patients (85.6%), R0 resection was achieved. A complete mesorectal excision was obtained in 82.7% of LAR and 78.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.855). The 1-, 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were, respectively, 95.6, 73.8 and 66.7% for the LAR group and 86.7, 66.9 and 64.1% for the OAR group (p = 0.219). The presence of synchronous metastases (hazard ratio 2.26), R1 resection (HR 2.71) and lymph node involvement (HR 2.24) were significant predictors of overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that LAR for pT4 rectal cancer can achieve good pathologic and oncologic outcomes similar to open surgery despite the risk of conversion. Moreover, laparoscopy offers the benefits of a faster recovery and a shorter hospital stay.