Standardized Laparoscopic Sphincter-preserving Total Mesorectal Excision For Rectal Cancer: Median of 10 Years’ Long-term Oncologic Outcome in 217 Unselected Consecutive Patients

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been endorsed by clinical guidelines for colon cancer, but not for rectal cancer on account of unapproved oncologic equivalence with open surgery.

AIMS

We started this largest-to-date meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Both randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic proctectomy and open surgery between January 1990 and March 2020 were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase Databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020211718). The data of intraoperative, pathological, postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs and 93 NRCTs including 216,615 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with 48,888 patients received laparoscopic surgery and 167,727 patients underwent open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery group showed faster recovery, less complications and decreased mortality within 30 days. The positive rate of circumferential margin (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.85, p < 0.0001) and distal margin (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.85 p < 0.0001) was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group, but the completeness of total mesorectal excision showed no significant difference. The 3-year and 5-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival were all improved in the laparoscopic surgery group, while the distal recurrence did not differ significantly between the two approaches.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer with respect to oncological outcomes and long-term survival. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including faster recovery and less complications.

Survival prognostic in different age groups of patients undergoing local versus radical excision for rectal cancer: a study based on the SEER database

Age significantly affects the prognosis of patients with rectal cancer after radical excision (RE), and local excision (LE) is an alternative surgical procedure to RE. To compare the survival prognosis in different age groups of LE versus RE for rectal cancer. Patients diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma treated by LE or RE from 2010 to 2017 were obtained from the SEER database. The primary outcomes are 5-year OS and CSS. A total of 11,170 patients were eventually included, and there were 490 patients in LE and RE groups, respectively, after 1:1 propensity score matching. The 5-year OS and CSS after LE were significantly better in < 50 years and 50-66 years groups than in > 66 years group (5-year OS: 95.70% vs 88.40% vs 67.00%, P < 0.001; 5-year CSS: 95.70% vs 96.30% vs 82.60%, P < 0.001). No statistical significance was found for the differences in 5-year OS and CSS between LE and RE in < 50, 50-66, and > 66 years group (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed age > 66 years, poorly differentiated or undifferentiated (Grade III/IV), and tumor size 3 to 5 cm was independent risk factors for 5-year OS after LE; age > 66 years, perineural invasion, and tumor size 3 to 5 cm were the 5-year CSS independent risk factors for after LE. We found that the survival prognosis of younger rectal cancer patients treated with LE was significantly better than older (> 66 years) patients, and the survival prognosis of rectal cancer patients in the three age groups was similar between LE and RE.

Perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a retrospective study of 672 patients

Although there's growing information about the long-term oncological effects of robotic surgery for rectal cancer, the procedure is still relatively new. This study aimed to assess the long-term oncological results of total mesorectal excision (TME) performed laparoscopically versus robotically in the setting of rectal cancer. Restrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. A total of 489 laparoscopic (L-TME) and 183 robotic total mesorectal excisions (R-TME) were carried out by a single surgeon between 2013 and 2023. The groups were compared in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. In the R-TME and L-TME groups, male sex predominated (75.4% and 57.3%, respectively), although the robotic group was significantly greater (p = 0.008). There was no conversion in R-TME group, whereas three (0.6%) converted to open surgery in L-TME group. The R-TME group had a statistically significant higher number of distal rectal tumors (85%) compared to the L-TME group (54.6%). Only three (1.7%) patients in the R-TME group received abdomineperineal resection (APR); in contrast, 25 (5%) patients in the L-TME group received APR (p < 0.001). For R-TME, the mean follow-up was 70.7 months (range 18-138) and for L-TME, it was 60 months (range 14-140). Frequency of completed mesorectum was significantly greater in R-TME group (98.9% vs 94.2%, p < 0.001). The 5 year overall survival rates for R-TME and L-TME groups were 89.6% and 88.7%, respectively. The 5 year disease-free survival for R-TME and L-TME groups were 84.1% and 81.1%, respectively. The local recurrences rates were 7.6% and 6.3%, respectively in R-TME and L-TME groups (p = 0.274). R-TME is characterized by no conversion and improved mesorectal integrity. R-TME had longer operation time. The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between groups.

Robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving resections have similar peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes in female patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare perioperative, long-term oncological, and anorectal functional outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision in female patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. Sixty-eight cases (L-TME, n = 34; R-TME, n = 34) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2014-January 2019). Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications, pathology results, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics did not differ between the groups. Mean operating time was longer in R-TME (165.50 ± 95.50 vs. 124.50 ± 82.60 min, p < 0.001). There was no conversion to open surgery in both groups. Mesorectal integrity was complete in both groups (100%). Length of distal and circumferential resection margins (CRM) did not differ between groups. CRM involvement was observed in 1 (2.8%) and 1 (2.8%) in L-TME and R-TME patients, respectively. Incidence of anastomotic leakage was 5.8% (n = 2) in L-TME and 8.8% (n = 3) in R-TME, respectively. Mean length of follow-up was 62.5 (36-102) months for R-TME and 63 (36-103) months for L-TME. Five-year overall survival rates were 92.8% in L-TME and 89.6% in R-TME. Disease-free survival rates were 87.5% in L-TME and 89.6% in R-TME. Local recurrence rates were 3.0% for both groups. Mean Wexner score for L-TME and R-TME patients was: 9.42 ± 8.23 and 9.22 ± 3.64 (p = 0.685), respectively. Daily stool frequency was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) have similar perioperative, oncological, and anorectal functional results in female patients with rectal cancer. The robotic approach for rectal cancers in female patients could be not as critical as for male patients.

Robotic male and laparoscopic female sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer share similar specimen quality, complication rates and long-term oncological outcomes

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision in female patients (F-Lap-TME) and robotic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision in male patients (M-Rob-TME) with mid-low rectal cancer (RC). A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. 170 cases (F-Lap-TME: 60 patients; M-Rob-TME: 110 patients) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2011-January 2020). Clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Operating time was longer in M-Rob-TME than in F-Lap-TME group (185.3 ± 28.4 vs 124.5 ± 35.8 min, p < 0.001). There was no conversion to open surgery in both groups. Quality of mesorectum was complete/near-complete in 58 (96.7%) and 107 (97.3%) patients of F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME (p = 0.508), respectively. Circumferential radial margin involvement was observed in 2 (3.3%) and 3 (2.9%) in F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME patients (p = 0.210), respectively. Median length of follow-up was 62 (24-108) months in the F-Lap-TME and 64 (24-108) months in the M-Rob-TME group. Five-year overall survival rates were 90.5% in the F-Lap-TME and 89.6% in the M-Rob-TME groups (p = 0.120). Disease-free survival rates in F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME groups were 87.5% and 86.5% (p = 0.145), respectively. Local recurrence rates were 5% (n = 3) and 5.5% (n = 6) (p = 0.210), in the F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME groups, respectively. The robotic technique can potentially overcome some technical challenges related to the pelvic anatomical difference between sex compared to laparoscopy. Laparoscopic and robotic approach, respectively in female and male patients provide similar surgical specimen quality, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncological results.

Outcomes after the watch-and-wait strategy and local excision treatment for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy and local excision (LE) have been used in patients with clinical complete response (cCR) for rectal cancer, but the comparative outcomes of the two strategies are controversial. We compared the efficacy of the W&W strategy with LE for rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) or total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Several domestic and foreign databases were searched for the relevant literature on comparative trials of the W&W strategy and LE surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy with the following outcomes; differences in local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM/DM+LR), 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Nine articles, were analyzed. Overall, 442 patients were included, with 267 and 175 patients in the W&W and LE groups, respectively. Meta-analysis results showed no significant differences the between W&W and LE groups with respect to LR, DM/DM+LR, 3-year DFS, 3-year LRFS, and 3-year OS. This study has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022331208).

CONCLUSION

The W&W strategy may be preferred for some rectal cancer patients who select LE and reach cCR or near cCR after nCRT or TNT.

Is robotic da Vinci Xi® superior to the da Vinci Si® for sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision? Outcomes in 150 mid-low rectal cancer patients

The aim of this study was to determine the superiority between the robotic da Vinci Si® (Si group) and da Vinci Xi® (Xi group) generation in patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Between December 2011 and December 2017, 88 patients with mid-low rectal cancer were operated on using the Si robotic system, from January 2018 to May 2021, 62 more patients with mid-low rectal cancer were operated on using the Xi robotic system. Perioperative and postoperative short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox-regression analysis were performed to determine factors affecting operating time. A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was also performed to determine the learning curve of the primary surgeon. All patients underwent sphincter saving total mesorectal excision (TME). The overall operating time was significantly shorter in the Xi group (181.3 ± 31.8 min in Si group vs 123.6 ± 25.7 min in the Xi group, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of conversion rates, mean hospital stays, complications and histopathologic data. CUSUM analysis show completion of learning curve in 44th case of Si group. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated that the learning curve of the primary surgeon (p < 0.001) and the type of robotic system (Xi) are only two factors associated with operating time (OR, 95% CI p; 3.656, 0.665-9.339, p < 0.001). Our study found that the robotic da Vinci Xi systems provide significantly shorter operating time comparing with Si systems, when performing sphincter-preserving TME in mid-low rectal cancer patients. Surgical system (da Vinci Xi) and primary surgeon learning curve are two independent risk factors which associated shortened operating time. Postoperative complication rates and histopathologic outcomes are similar in both groups.

Controversies and consensus in transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME): Is it a valid choice for rectal cancer?

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel approach to radical surgery for low rectal cancer. taTME is associated with the benefits of a higher rate of free distal resection margins (DRM) under direct visualization, better visualization of the mesorectal plane, and the feasibility of overcoming the restriction of the distal pelvis. Thus, it is increasingly used globally. In this review, we investigated whether taTME yields better short- and long-term outcomes than laparoscopic TME.

Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Purpose

The current meta-analysis combining mid and low rectal cancer with no meta-analysis only for low rectal cancer was seen. This meta-analysis was to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using the web-based databases; China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Database, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Wanfang Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the Jadad scale and non-RCTs (NRCs) were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

Ten studies (2 RCTs and 8 NRCs) involving 772 patients were included. Among them, 378 patients underwent TaTME and 394 patients underwent LaTME. Compared with the LaTME group, the conversion rate was low (risk ratio [RR], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11–0.54; P < 0.001), the circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was low (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27–0.86; P = 0.010), and the hospital stay was short (mean difference, −1.72; 95% CI, −2.89 to −0.55; P = 0.004) in the TaTME group. No significant differences were seen in the mesorectal resection quality, CRM distance, distal resection margin (DRM) involvement, DRM distance, local R1 resection, intraoperative complications, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, severe morbidity, mortality, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, and local recurrence rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The TaTME is a promising surgical technique and is fully a safe and efficacious option in managing low rectal cancer.

Comparison of short-term efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The transanal total mesorectal excision(TaTME) of rectal malignancies is largely referred to as treatment of mid to low, especially low rectal cancer. This study was to compare the short-term efficacy of TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective study of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical surgery at the General Surgery of Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital from January 2017 to December 2019 was performed. The general information, perioperative results and pathological results of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients were included in the study, 32 in the TaTME group and 32 in the LaTME group. The clinical characteristics of the two groups was comparable (P > 0.05). The operation time in the TaTME group was longer than that in the LaTME group (212.59 ± 28.71min vs 187.66 ± 27.15min, P = 0.001), no significant differences were seen in the conversion rate, intraoperative complications, morbidity, serious morbidity, anastomotic leak, unplanned reoperation and hospital stay(P > 0.05). The circumferential resection margin (CRM) distance in the TaTME group was longer than that in the LaTME group (6.81 ± 2.99 mm vs 5.21 ± 3.06 mm, P = 0.039). The inter-group difference in terms of harvested lymph nodes, mesorectum integrity, CRM involvement, DRM distance, R1 resection, complete remission, pathological T stage, pathological N stage and pathological TNM stage was not significant (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME is a promising surgical technique and maybe offers a safe and feasible alternative to LaTME in managing low rectal cancer.

The long-term oncological outcomes of the 140 robotic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single surgeon experience

Robotic surgery became more popularly in the colorectal surgical field. The aim of the study was to evaluate of the oncological outcomes which patients who underwent the robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. A series of 140 consecutive patients who underwent robotic rectal surgery between January 2012 and June 2019 was analyzed retrospectively in terms of demographics, pathological data, and surgical and oncological outcomes. There were 104 (74.28%) male and 36 (25.71%) female patients. The tumor was located in the lower rectum in 84 (60%) cases, in the mid rectum in 38 (27.14%) cases, and in the upper rectum in 18 (12.85%) cases. Ninety-eight (70%) of the patients has received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. All the patients underwent robotic sphincter-preserving surgery, 101 (72.14%) patients low-anterior resection, and 39 (27.85%) patients underwent intersphincteric resection with colo-anal anastomosis. There were no conversions. The circumferential resection margin was positive in five (3.57%) patients. The median distal resection margin of the operative specimen was 3.2 (0.2-7) cm. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 22 (16-42). TME quality in the in our study was rated as complete in 88.57% (n124) of patients, nearly complete in 7.14% (n10) of patients; and 4.28% (n6) of incomplete. The median hospital stay was 3.5 (3-12) days. In-hospital and 1-month mortality was zero. The median length of follow-up was 40 (2-80) months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 92.78%. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 90%. Locally recurrence and distance recurrence rate was 3.57% (n5/140) and 2.85% (n4/140), respectively. Robotic rectal cancer surgery has a good oncological outcomes and feasible tool in the field of the rectal surgery, but required a steep learning curve.