Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal surgery in high-risk patients

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer resection.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancers: Perioperative and oncological outcomes from a multicentre case series

BACKGROUND

Around 20% of rectal tumors are locally advanced with invasion into adjacent structures at presentation. These may require surgical resections beyond boundaries of total mesorectal excision (bTME) for radicality. Robotic bTME is under investigation. This study reports perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic bTME for locally advanced rectal cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected robotic bTME resections (July 2015-November 2020). Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated.

RESULTS

One-hundred-sixty-eight patients (eight centres) were included. Median age and BMI were 60.0 (50.0-68.7) years and 24.0 (24.4-27.7) kg/m2. Female sex was prevalent (n = 95, 56.8%). Fifty patients (29.6%) were ASA III-IV. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was given to 125 (74.4%) patients. Median operative time was 314.0 (260.0-450.0) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 150.0 (27.5-500.0) ml. Conversion to laparotomy was seen in 4.8%. Postoperative complications occurred in 77 (45.8%) patients; 27.3% and 3.9% were Clavien-Dindo III and IV, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% (n = 2). R0 rate was 92.9%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was offered to 72 (42.9%) patients. Median follow-up was 34.0 (10.0-65.7) months. Distant and local recurrences were seen in 35 (20.8%) and 15 patients (8.9%), respectively. Overall survival (OS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 91.7, 82.1, and 76.8%. Disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 84.0, 74.5, and 69.2%.

CONCLUSION

Robotic bTME is technically safe with relatively low conversion rate, good OS, and acceptable DFS in the hands of experienced surgeons in high volume centres. In selected cases robotic approach allows for high R0 rates during bTME.

Robotic-assisted surgery for left-sided colon and rectal resections is associated with reduction in the postoperative surgical stress response and improved short-term outcomes: a cohort study

INTRODUCTION

There is growing evidence that the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in colorectal cancer resections is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS), possibly through a reduced systemic inflammatory response (SIR). Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is a sensitive SIR biomarker and its utility in the early identification of post-operative complications has been validated in a variety of surgical procedures. There remains a paucity of studies characterising post-operative SIR in RAS.

METHODS

Retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients undergoing OS, LS and RAS for left-sided and rectal cancer in a single high-volume unit. Patient and disease characteristics, post-operative CRP levels, and clinical outcomes were reviewed, and their relationships explored within binary logistic regression and propensity scores matched models.

RESULTS

A total of 1031 patients were included (483 OS, 376 LS, and 172 RAS). RAS and LS were associated with lower CRP levels across the first 4 post-operative days (p < 0.001) as well as reduced complications and length of stay compared to OS in unadjusted analyses. In binary logistic regression models, RAS was independently associated with lower CRP levels at Day 3 post-operatively (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59, p < 0.001) and a reduction in the rate of all complications (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, p < 0.001) and major complications (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p = 0.036). Within a propensity scores matched model comparing LS versus RAS specifically, RAS was associated with lower post-operative CRP levels in the first two post-operative days, a lower proportion of patients with a CRP ≥ 150 mg/L at Day 3 (20.9% versus 30.5%, p = 0.036) and a lower rate of all complications (34.7% versus 46.7%, p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

The present observational study shows that an RAS approach was associated with lower postoperative SIR, and a better postoperative complications profile.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and contrast the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the treatment of obese patients. In February 2024, we carried out an exhaustive search of key global databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, limiting our focus to studies published in English and Chinese. We excluded reviews, protocols lacking published results, articles derived solely from conference abstracts, and studies not relevant to our research objectives. To analyze categorical variables, we utilized the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method along with random-effects models, calculating inverse variances and presenting the outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was determined when p values were less than 0.05. In our final meta-analysis, we included eight cohort studies, encompassing a total of 5,004 patients. When comparing the robotic surgery group to the laparoscopic group, the findings revealed that the robotic group experienced a longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 37.53 min, 95% (CI) 15.58-59.47; p = 0.0008), a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -0.68 days, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.10; p = 0.02), and reduced blood loss (WMD = -49.23 mL, 95% CI -64.31 to -34.14; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding overall complications, conversion rates, surgical site infections, readmission rates, lymph node yield, anastomotic leakage, and intestinal obstruction. The results of our study indicate that robot-assisted colorectal surgery offers benefits for obese patients by shortening the length of hospital stay and minimizing blood loss when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Nonetheless, it is associated with longer operation times and shows no significant difference in terms of overall complications, conversion rates, rehospitalization rates, and other similar metrics.

Impact of robotic total mesorectal excision upon pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 836 cases

The aim of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the impact of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) on pathology metrics in Male Overweight patients with Low rectal cancer (MOL). This was a multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of data. Two groups were defined: MOL (Male, Overweight, Low rectal cancer) and non-MOL. Overweight was defined as BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. Low rectal cancer was defined as cancer within 6 cm from the anal verge. The primary endpoints of this study were histopathological metrics, namely circumferential resection margin (CRM) (mm), CRM involvement rate (%), and the quality of TME. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved if < 1 mm. 836 (106 MOL and 730 non-MOL) patients that underwent robotic TME by six surgeons over 3 years were compared. No significant differences in demographics and perioperative variables were found, except for operating time, distal margin, and number of lymph nodes harvested. CRM involvement rate did not significantly differ (7.5% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.395). Mean CRM was statistically significantly narrower in MOL patients (6.6 vs. 7.7 mm, p = 0.04). Quality of TME did not differ. Distance of tumor from the anal verge was the only independent predictor of CRM involvement. Robotic TME may provide optimal pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer. Although CRM was a few millimeters narrower in MOL, the values were within the range of uninvolved margins making the difference statistically significant, but not clinically. Being MOL was not a risk factor for involvement of circumferential resection margin.

Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for colon cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery: a propensity score-matching analysis

Robotic surgery is widely used in gastrointestinal surgery. While the application of robotic surgery for colon cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery (PAS) remains controversial for the fear of intra-abdominal adhesions. This study was aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic colectomy for patients with PAS. The medical records of colon cancer patients who underwent robotic surgery at our hospital from June 2015 to August 2020 were extracted and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was implemented to minimize selection bias. We compared perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications between the patients with PAS or with no PAS (NPAS). A total of 79 patients (PAS group) and 348 patients (NPAS group) were included in our study. After PSM, 79 patients of PAS group and 79 patients of NPAS group were selected for further analysis. We did not find statistical difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, length of hospital stay and hospital costs between the two groups. No difference was noted in the incidence of postoperative complications, conversion to open surgery and mortality between the two groups. According to the results of multivariate analysis, PAS was not identified as risk factor for postoperative complications. Left hemicolectomy and perioperative transfusion were associated with postoperative complications. PAS did not negatively affect the outcomes of robotic colectomy. After individually preoperative assessment, robotic surgery could be performed feasibly and safely for colon cancer patients with PAS.

Analysis of 10 years of open, laparoscopic, and robotic rectal surgeries in the community setting

Background

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the US. Many of these patients will require operations. Although there is significant data in the literature that supports minimally invasive colorectal operations in the academic setting, few studies have examined their performance in community hospitals.

Methods

Data was collected from a high-volume, university-affiliated, community center. Our Cancer Registry Database was queried to include any patients that had rectal surgery at our institution from 2010 to 2020. One hundred-twenty-two patients were identified and reviewed retrospectively. Main outcome measures include estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, time to first bowel movement, oncologic resection, length of stay (LOS), survival, and cost analysis.

Results

Both robotic and laparoscopic operations resulted in lower average EBL, less blood transfusions, and less time to first bowel movement (p = 0.003, 0.006, 0.003, respectively). There was no significant difference in ability to achieve R0 resection, adequate lymph node retrieval, and adequate total mesorectal excision (TME, p = 0.856, 0.489, 0.500, respectively). LOS was significantly shorter for minimally invasive operations, 4.35 vs 8.48 days, and average survival was longest for laparoscopic operations at 7.19 years as compared to 5.55 years for open operations (p < 0.001, 0.026, respectively). Cost was lowest for robotic operations (0.003).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive rectal operations, especially robotic, lead to better short- and long-term outcomes, equivalent oncologic resection, and are more cost-effective as compared to open operations even in the community setting, supporting continued performance and growth of robotic colorectal operations in the community setting.

Key message

Although there is significant data in the literature that supports minimally invasive colorectal operations in the academic setting, few studies have examined their performance in community hospitals as this study does. This study found that minimally invasive rectal operations, especially robotic, lead to better short- and long-term outcomes, equivalent oncologic resection, and are more cost-effective as compared to open operations even in the community setting, supporting continued performance and growth of robotic colorectal operations in the community setting.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancers: The COLRAR Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether robotic for middle or low rectal cancer produces an improvement in surgical outcomes compared with laparoscopic surgery in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of proven clinical benefit of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with a laparoscopic approach in the setting of multicenter RCTs.

METHODS

Between July 2011 and February 2016, patients diagnosed with an adenocarcinoma located <10 cm from the anal verge and clinically rated T1-4aNxM0 were enrolled. The primary outcome was the completeness of TME assessed by a surgeon and a pathologist.

RESULTS

The RCT was terminated prematurely because of poor accrual of data. In all, 295 patients were assigned randomly to a robot-assisted TME group (151 in R-TME) or a laparoscopy-assisted TME group (144 in L-TME). The rates of complete TME were not different between groups (80.7% in R-TME, 77.1% in L-TME). Pathologic outcomes including the circumferential resection margin and the numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were not different between groups. In a subanalysis, the positive circumferential resection margin rate was lower in the R-TME group (0% vs 6.1% for L-TME; P =0.031). Among the recovery parameters, the length of opioid use was shorter in the R-TME group ( P =0.028). There was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups (12.0% for R-TME vs 8.3% for L-TME).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with middle or low rectal cancer, robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly improve the TME quality compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT01042743).

Short-term outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery: a propensity score match study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery offers improved short-term outcomes over open surgery but can be technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used for IPAA surgery, but there is limited evidence supporting its use. This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic IPAA procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic IPAA surgery at 3 centres, from 3 countries, between 2008 and 2019 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for gender, previous abdominal surgery, ASA grade (I, II vs III, IV) and procedure performed (proctocolectomy vs completion proctectomy). Their short-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were identified (73 laparoscopic, 16 robotic). The 16 patients that received robotic surgery were matched with 15 laparoscopic patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated short-term outcomes. Length of stay trend was higher for laparoscopic surgery (9 vs 7 days, p = 0.072) CONCLUSION: Robotic IPAA surgery is safe and feasible and offers similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay may be lower for robotic IPAA surgery, but further larger scale studies are required in order to demonstrate this.

Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leakage Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains one of the most severe complications following colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Indeed, leaks that may occur after any type of intestinal anastomosis are commonly associated with a higher reoperation rate and an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. At first, our review aims to identify specific preoperative, intraoperative and perioperative factors that eventually lead to the development of anastomotic dehiscence based on the current literature. We will also investigate the role of several biomarkers in predicting the presence of ALs following colorectal surgery. Despite significant improvements in perioperative care, advances in surgical techniques, and a high index of suspicion of this complication, the incidence of AL remained stable during the last decades. Thus, gaining a better knowledge of the risk factors that influence the AL rates may help identify high-risk surgical patients requiring more intensive perioperative surveillance. Furthermore, prompt diagnosis of this severe complication may help improve patient survival. To date, several studies have identified predictive biomarkers of ALs, which are most commonly associated with the inflammatory response to colorectal surgery. Interestingly, early diagnosis and evaluation of the severity of this complication may offer a significant opportunity to guide clinical judgement and decision-making.

Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer: feasibility and oncological quality

For T4 rectal tumours and local recurrences (LR) of rectal cancer, a radical resection beyond TME, sometimes by multi-visceral resection, is important to obtain safe margins and improve survival. The use of the laparoscopic approach (LA) for these cases is still controversial and associated with a high rate of conversion. However, robotic surgery might offer some advantages that can overcome some of the limitations of LA. Therefore, we aimed to analyse the postoperative outcomes and medium-term oncological results of robotic surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer (pathological T4) and LR. A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who had undergone robotic rectal resection in a single institution over an 11-year period, and had a T4 tumour confirmed in the pathological report. Primary endpoint was to analyse postoperative complications (30-day) and the rate of conversion. Secondary endpoints include pathological assessment of the quality of the specimen, local recurrence and survival [2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)]. A total of 41 patients were analysed, including a total of 24 patients (60%) that required a multivisceral resection. The median distance from the tumour to the anorectal junction was 7 (4-12) cm. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 2 cases (5%). The overall morbidity rate was 78% (n = 32), with 37% of major complications, most of them urinary (n = 7). Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 13 (7-27) days. The 30-day mortality rate was 7% (n = 3). An R0 resection was achieved in 85.4% of the cases (n = 35) due to 6 cases of the positive circumferential resection margin. 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for the T4 tumours were 72% and 85%, respectively. There were 8 cases of local recurrence (22.2%); 6 of them met the selection criteria for salvage surgery. Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer and multi-visceral resections is safe and feasible, with a low rate of conversion and an acceptable rate of postoperative morbidity in this subgroup of patients. Oncological results have shown to be comparable with the laparoscopic series published, preserving a good quality of the resected specimen. However, comparative studies and a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm the oncologic findings and to support the general adoption of the robotic system for these complex interventions.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients: ACS-NSQIP analysis

Laparoscopic rectal surgery within the confines of a narrow pelvis may be associated with a high rate of open conversion. In the obese and morbidly obese patient, the complexity of laparoscopic surgery increases substantially. Robotic technology is known to reduce the risk of conversion, but it is unclear if it can overcome the technical challenges associated with obesity. The ACS NSQIP database was used to identify obese patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal resection from 2015 to 2016. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m². Morbid obesity was defined as a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m². The primary outcome was unplanned conversions to open. Other outcomes measures assessed included anastomotic leak, operative time, surgical site infections, length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM SPSS, USA). 1490 patients had robotic-assisted and 4967 patients had laparoscopic rectal resections between 2015 and 2016. Of those patients, 561 obese patients had robotic-assisted rectal resections and 1824 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal surgery. In the obese cohort, the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 14% compared to 24% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.0001). Median operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (248 min vs. 215 min, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in anastomotic leak or systemic sepsis between the laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgery groups. In morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m²), the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 19% compared to 26% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.027). There was no difference in anastomotic leak, systemic sepsis or surgical site infection rates between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. Multivariate analysis showed that robotic-assisted surgery was associated with fewer unplanned conversions to open (OR 0.28, P < 0.0001). Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with a decreased risk of conversion to open in obese and morbidly obese patients when compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery was associated with longer operative time and despite improvement in the rate of conversion to open, there was no difference in complications or length of stay. Our findings are limited by the retrospective non-randomised nature of the study, demographic differences between the two groups, and the likely difference in surgeon experience between the two groups. Large randomised controlled studies are needed to further explore the role of robotic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients.

eTEP inferior access with tailored retromuscular dissection for small to mid-sized umbilical hernia repair with or without inguinal hernia: early experience

INTRODUCTION

The minimally invasive surgical repair of combined inguinal and ventral hernias often requires shifting from one approach or plane to another. The traditional enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal Rives-Stoppa repair consists of a large retro muscular dissection that is unjustified for small ventral hernias. Here we describe a modification to the minimally invasive Rives-Stoppa repair using a limited retro muscular dissection based on the ventral defect size for small/medium-sized hernias, with or without combined inguinal hernias.

METHODS

From a single surgical team, a retrospective study was performed over a 1-year period. Demographics, hernia characteristics, surgical techniques, intraoperative/postoperative complications, and outcomes were all analyzed and reported. We also included detailed surgical steps, landmarks, pitfalls, and personal tips for this technique.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients underwent a laparoscopic limited retromuscular dissection ventral hernia repair utilizing the eTEP access technique. Eighteen were primary umbilical hernias and six postoperative incisional hernias, and nine were combined ventral and inguinal hernia repairs. Eight of the primary umbilical hernias were EHS classified as medium size, 11 small, and for the incisional hernias, three were classified as M3W1 and two as M3W2. One procedure was converted to TAPP. There were no intraoperative complications. The mean length of stay was 1.25 days (range 1-3). There was one postoperative retromuscular hematoma and no recurrence during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

eTEP with limited dissection offers a good and safe solution for small to medium size hernias; it provides an efficient solution when an inguinal hernia is to be addressed as well.

Da vinci robotic-assisted treatment of pediatric choledochal cyst

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of da Vinci robot and laparoscopy in treating pediatric choledochal cysts.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from forty-two children diagnosed with choledochal cysts in our hospital from January 2018 to January 2021. Twenty children underwent da Vinci robotic surgery, and the others underwent traditional laparoscopy. We compared differences in general information and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative differences between the two surgical groups.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in age, gender, weight, type, maximum cyst diameter, preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) value, postoperative complication rate, and postoperative pain score between the two surgical groups (P > 0.05). The average age of the robot-assisted group was 3.62 ± 0.71 years old (range = 1-12 years). There were nineteen cases of Todani type I, one patients of other types, and the maximum cyst diameter was 35.45 ± 9.32 mm (range = 12-56 mm). In the laparoscopic group, the average age was 3.08 ± 0.82 years old (range = 3-10 years). Twenty-one patients had Todani type I, and one had other types. The maximum cyst diameter was 31.94 ± 8.64 mm (range = 10-82 mm). The robot-assisted group had better abdominal drainage, postoperative CRP value, fasting time, and discharge time than the laparoscopic group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laparoscopy, the da Vinci system has the advantages of less tissue damage, faster recovery, and better healing in the treatment of children with congenital choledochal cysts. With technological advancements and an increased number of experienced surgeons, robotic surgery may become a new trend in surgery.

Risk Factors and Preventive Measures for Anastomotic Leak in Colorectal Cancer

Anastomotic leak (AL) represents one of the most detrimental complications after colorectal surgery. The patient-related factors and surgery-related factors leading to AL have been identified in previous studies. Through early identification and timely adjustment of risk factors, preventive measures can be taken to reduce potential AL. However, there are still many problems associated with AL. The debate about preventive measures such as preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), intraoperative drainage, and surgical scope also continues. Recently, the gut microbiota has received more attention due to its important role in various diseases. Although the underlying mechanisms of gut microbiota on AL have not been validated completely, new strategies that manipulate intrinsic mechanisms are expected to prevent and treat AL. Moreover, laboratory examinations for AL prediction and methods for blood perfusion assessment are likely to be promoted in clinical practice. This review outlines possible risk factors for AL and suggests some preventive measures in terms of patient, surgery, and gut microbiota.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Simple Summary

Surgery remains a mainstay of combined modality treatment at patients with rectal cancer; however, there is a growing interest in using laparoscopic techniques (LG); including robotic-assisted techniques (RG). Therefore, we have prepared a meta-analysis of the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. The results indicate a number of advantages of RG in terms of both safety and efficacy. Operative time in the RG group was shorter and associated with a statistically significantly lower conversion of the procedure to open surgery. RG technique provided a shorter duration of hospital stay and lowered urinary risk retention. No differences were found between these techniques regarding TNM stage; N stage or lymph nodes harvested. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% in RG vs. 98.8% for LG.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to 10 November 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was 2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD = −0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs. LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs. 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

Updates of Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage after Colorectal Surgery

Anastomotic leakage is a potentially severe complication occurring after colorectal surgery and can lead to increased morbidity and mortality, permanent stoma formation, and cancer recurrence. Multiple risk factors for anastomotic leak have been identified, and these can allow for better prevention and an earlier diagnosis of this significant complication. There are nonmodifiable factors such as male gender, comorbidities and distance of tumor from anal verge, and modifiable risk factors, including smoking and alcohol consumption, obesity, preoperative radiotherapy and preoperative use of steroids or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Perioperative blood transfusion was shown to be an important risk factor for anastomotic failure. Recent studies on the laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery found no statistical difference in anastomotic leakage rate compared with open surgery. A diverting stoma at the time of primary surgery does not appear to reduce the leak rate but may reduce its clinical consequences and the need for additional surgery if anastomotic leakage does occur. It is still debatable if preoperative bowel preparation should be used, especially for left colon and rectal resections, but studies have shown similar incidence of postoperative leak rate.

Predictors and Consequences of Unplanned Conversion to Open During Robotic Colectomy: An ACS-NSQIP Database Analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery has become a desired modality for performing colectomy; however, unplanned conversion to an open procedure may be associated with worse outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine predictors and consequences of unplanned conversion to open in a large, high fidelity data set. A retrospective analysis of 11 061 robotic colectomies was conducted using the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) 2012-2017 database. Predictors of conversion and the effect of conversion on outcomes were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression resulting in risk-adjusted odds ratios of conversion and morbidity/mortality. Overall, 10 372 (93.8%) patients underwent successful robotic colectomy, and 689 (6.2%) had an unplanned conversion. Predictors of conversion included age ≥ 65 years, male gender, obesity, functional status not independent, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) classification IV-V, non-oncologic indication, emergency case, smoking, recent weight loss, bleeding disorder, and preoperative organ space infection. Conversion is an independent risk factor for mortality, overall morbidity, cardiac morbidity, pulmonary morbidity, renal morbidity, venous thromboembolism morbidity, wound morbidity, sepsis, bleeding, readmission, return to the operating room, and extended length of stay (LOS). Unplanned conversion to open during robotic colectomy is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality.

Implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program with robotic surgery in high-risk patients obtains optimal results after colorectal resections

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs reduce postoperative complications and length of stay after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, but are still under evaluation after robotic colorectal surgery. To evaluate potential benefits in terms of length of stay and complications of an Enhanced recovery after surgery program in colorectal surgery. A subanalysis was performed to assess what combination of surgical approach and perioperative care had better outcomes. Prospective observational cohort study. 300 consecutive colorectal surgery patients: 150 were prospectively included in the enhanced recovery after Surgery program group and 150 retrospectively in the traditional care group, and subdivided according to the type of surgery, in Hospital Marques de Valdecilla, between 2013 and 2016. Postoperative complications decreased significantly (p = 0.002) from 46 to 28% (traditional care vs program group). The length of stay was decreased by 2 days (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated similar effect sizes after adjusting for age, gender, Charlson score, and type of surgery. Type of surgery was an independent predictive factor for postoperative complications and length of stay. Compared to open surgery, postoperative complications decreased by 50% (p < 0.001) after robotic surgery and by 40% (p = 0.01) after laparoscopic surgery, while the median length of stay decreased by three days (p < 0.001) after minimally invasive surgery. Enhanced recovery after surgery program and minimally invasive surgery were associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay after colorectal surgery compared to open surgery and traditional care. An enhanced recovery after surgery program with robotic surgery in high-risk patients might be beneficial.

Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies

Background

RCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model.

Results

Fifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) –1.11 (95 per cent c.i. –1.86 to –0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD –0.28 (–1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively).

Conclusion

Results of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.

State of the art in robotic rectal surgery: marginal gains worth the pain?

After their first introduction in the 1990s to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, especially in confined spaces such as the pelvis, telemanipulators (i.e., master-slave manipulators) have gained popularity and acceptance among gastrointestinal surgeons. These complex, interventional surgical devices use multiple technologies, such as 3-D advanced imaging, tremor reduction and 7-degree movement. Superior instrument dexterity, stable precise vision and accessibility to narrow confined spaces make these devices well suited for colorectal surgery. The drive for innovations in the field of surgical robotics will leverage novel robots driven by data, image integration, and artificial intelligence. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be learned from the current literature and clinical trials. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established; increasing evidence suggests that when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery, robotic approaches might offer superior peri-operative outcomes. Notably, the marginal gains achieved with the use of robotics in rectal cancer surgery are linked with structured training and standardization of operative techniques. With decreasing costs and wider availability of new systems, it is foreseeable that robotic surgical systems will be an integral part of colorectal practice.

Surgical Complexity and Outcome During the Implementation Phase of a Robotic Colorectal Surgery Program-A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Robotic surgery holds particular promise for complex oncologic colorectal resections, as it can overcome many limitations of the laparoscopic approach. However, similar to the situation in laparoscopic surgery, appropriate case selection (simple vs. complex) with respect to the actual robotic expertise of the team may be a critical determinant of outcome. The present study aimed to analyze the clinical outcome after robotic colorectal surgery over time based on the complexity of the surgical procedure.

Methods

All robotic colorectal resections (n = 85) performed at the Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, between the beginning of the program in April 2015 until December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. To compare surgical outcome over time, the cohort was divided into 2 time periods based on case sequence (period 1: patients 1–43, period 2: patients 44–85). Cases were assigned a complexity level (I-IV) according to the type of resection, severity of disease, sex and body mass index (BMI). Postoperative complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results

In total, 47 rectal resections (55.3%), 22 partial colectomies (25.8%), 14 abdomino-perineal resections (16.5%) and 2 proctocolectomies (2.4%) were performed. Of these, 69.4% (n = 59) were oncologic cases. The overall rate of major complications (Clavien Dindo III-V) was 16.5%. Complex cases (complexity levels III and IV) were more often followed by major complications than cases with a low to medium complexity level (I and II; 25.0 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.016). Furthermore, the rate of major complications decreased over time from 25.6% (period 1) to 7.1% (period 2, p = 0.038). Of note, the drop in major complications was associated with a learning effect, which was particularly pronounced in complex cases as well as a reduction of case complexity from 67.5% to 45.2% in the second period (p = 0.039).

Conclusions

The risk of major complications after robotic colorectal surgery increases significantly with escalating case complexity (levels III and IV), particularly during the initial phase of a new colorectal robotic surgery program. Before robotic proficiency has been achieved, it is therefore advisable to limit robotic colorectal resection to cases with complexity levels I and II in order to keep major complication rates at a minimum.

Complete intersphincteric longitudinal muscle excision May Be key to reducing local recurrence during intersphincteric resection

BACKGROUND

Although total mesorectal excision (TME) is regarded as a standard procedure for rectal cancer, technical definition and evaluation method have not yet been investigated for intersphincteric resection (ISR). This study was performed to introduce a complete ISR procedure, and to assess whether total intersphincteric longitudinal muscle excision (TILME) facilitated the completeness of ISR and reduced recurrence.

METHODS

A total of 1080 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent robot-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) over 10 years were consecutively enrolled. Propensity-score matching of the two LAR groups (ISR vs LAR group, 1:1) and three ISR subgroups (partial vs subtotal vs total ISR subgroup, 2:2:1) was performed by strict adjustment of baseline characteristics. Archived specimens and video-/photo-records were reevaluated to examine completeness of TILME.

RESULTS

Complete-TILME was performed in 84.5% of patients who underwent ISR. Multivariate analysis showed that incomplete-TILME was the only parameter independently associated with increased 5-year cumulative local recurrence (odds ratio = 23.385; 95% confidence interval = 1.492-366.421; p = 0.03), and that incomplete-TILME was independently associated with adipose tissue surrounding the intersphincteric longitudinal muscle, coloanal anastomosis, and total ISR (p < 0.001-0.05). Although mean incontinence scores and anorectal manometry deteriorated to some degree 12-24 months after surgery in all patients, they remained acceptable. The 5-year cumulative DFS (74.1% vs 60%, p = 0.18) and OS (85.9% vs 70%, p = 0.10) rates tended to be higher in patients with complete than incomplete-TILME.

CONCLUSIONS

The completeness of TILME appears to be an independent indicator of complete ISR, reducing local recurrence following lower rectal cancer surgery.

Robotic rectal resection: oncologic outcomes

Robotic surgery has progressively gained popularity in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, only a few studies on its oncologic effectiveness are currently present, with contrasting results. The purpose of this study is to report a single surgeon’s experience on robotic rectal resection (RRR) for cancer, focusing on the analysis of oncologic outcomes, both in terms of pathological features and long-term results. One-hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients who underwent RRR for rectal cancer from January 2013 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes were collected. The analyzed oncologic outcomes were pathological features [distal (DM), circumferential margin (CRM) status and quality of mesorectal excision (TME)] and long-term outcomes [overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)]. The mean operative time was 275 (± 60.5) minutes. Conversion rate was 6.6%. Complications occurred in 27 cases (22.1%) and reoperation was needed in 2 patients (1.5%). The median follow-up was 30.5 (5.9–86.1) months. None presented DM positivity. CRM positivity was 2.5% (2 cases) while a complete TME was reached in 94.3% of cases (115 patients). Recurrence rate was 5.7% (2 local, 4 distant and 1 local plus distant tumor relapse). OS and DFS were 90.7% and 83%, respectively. At the multivariate analysis, both CRM positivity and near complete/incomplete TME were recognized as negative prognostic factors for OS and DFS. Under appropriate logistic and operative conditions, robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be oncologically effective, with adequate pathological results and long-term outcomes. It also offers acceptable peri-operative outcomes, further confirming the safety and feasibility of the technique.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery: comparative study of the impact of obesity on early outcomes

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) in obese versus non-obese patients. A total of 533 patients, of whom 161 were obese (30·2 per cent) underwent robotic proctectomy during the study interval. Patient obesity was not associated with adverse short-term clinical outcomes after robotic rectal cancer surgery. Indicated in the obese perhaps?

Urological and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

This systematic review sought to compare the urogenital functions after laparoscopic (LAP) and robotic (ROB) surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies (n = 2709 for ROB, n = 2720 for LAP) were included. There was a lower risk of 30-day urinary retention in the ROB group (risk ratios 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.99), but the long-term risk was comparable (p = 0.460). Meta-regression showed a small, positive relationship between age and risk of 30-day urinary retention in both the ROB (p = 0.034) and LAP groups (p = 0.004). The International Prostate Symptom Score was better in the ROB group at 3 months (mean difference [MD] -1.58, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.05). The International Index of Erectile Function score was better in the ROB group at 6 months (MD 4.06, 95% CI 2.38 - 5.74).

CONCLUSION

While robotics may improve urogenital function after rectal surgery, the quality of evidence is low based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Laparoscopic vs open surgery for colorectal cancer patients with high American Society of Anesthesiologists classes

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery has become popular for colorectal cancer treatment in recent years. However, its success rate even among high-risk patients remains debatable. The present study aims to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgeries in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classes 3 and 4 patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study performed at a university hospital, with 78 patients suffering from colorectal cancer who underwent surgery in ASA classes 3 and 4 as respondents. Patient and tumor characteristics, operative outcomes, and prognoses were factors compared between the open and laparoscopic groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the open group, laparoscopic group had longer operation time (median 287.5 vs 204.5 minutes, P = .001), less operative blood loss (median 40 vs 240 mL, P = .020), and fewer postoperative complications (24% vs 55%, P = .011). In addition, operative approach (open vs laparoscopic) served as an independent factor for the occurrence of postoperative complications [HR = 3.963 (1.344-12.269), P = .013]. In terms of overall survival and recurrence-free survival (P = .171 and .087, respectively), no significant difference was found between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is thus associated with more favorable short-time outcomes and could be adopted as treatment even for colorectal cancer ASA class 3 and 4 patients.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit Data

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is commonly used in the treatment of rectal cancer, despite the lack of evidence to support oncological equivalence or improved recovery compared with open surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze prospectively collected data from a large Australasian colorectal cancer database.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching.

SETTING

This study was conducted using data supplied by the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit.

PATIENTS

A total of 3451 patients who underwent open (n = 1980), laparoscopic (n = 1269), robotic (n = 117), and transanal total mesorectal excision (n = 85) for rectal cancer were included in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was positive margin rates (circumferential resection margin and/or distal resection margin) in patients treated with curative intent.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching yielded 1132 patients in each of the open and minimally invasive surgery groups. Margin positivity rates and lymph node yields did not differ between groups. The open group had a significantly lower total complication rate (27.6% vs 35.8%, p < 0.0001), including a lower rate of postoperative small-bowel obstruction (1.2% vs 2.5%, p = 0.03). The minimally invasive surgery group had significantly lower wound infection rate (2.9% vs 5.0%, p = 0.02) and a shorter length of hospital stay (8 vs 9 days, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality.

LIMITATIONS

Results are limited by the quality of registry data entries.

CONCLUSION

In this patient population, minimally invasive proctectomy demonstrated similar margin rates in comparison with open proctectomy, with a reduced length of stay but a higher overall complication rate. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B190. RESULTADOS DE LA PROCTECTOMÍA MÍNIMA INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ANÁLISIS DE PROPENSIÓN DE LOS DATOS BINACIONALES DE AUDITORÍA DEL CÁNCER COLORRECTAL: La cirugía mínima invasiva, frecuentemente se utiliza en el tratamiento del cáncer rectal, a pesar de la falta de evidencia que respalde la equivalencia oncológica o la mejor recuperación, en comparación con la cirugía abierta.El estudio tiene como objetivo analizar datos prospectivamente obtenidos, de una gran base de datos de cáncer colorrectal de Australia.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo utilizando el emparejamiento de puntaje de propensión.Este estudio se realizó utilizando datos proporcionados por la Auditoría Binacional del Cáncer Colorrectal.Se incluyeron en este estudio un total de 3451 pacientes que se trataron de manera abierta (n = 1980), laparoscópica (n = 1269), robótica (n = 117) y taTME (n = 85) para cáncer rectal.Los resultados primarios fueron de tasas de margen positivas (margen de resección circunferencial y/o margen de resección distal) en pacientes con intención curativa.La coincidencia de puntaje de propensión arrojó 1132 pacientes en cada uno de los grupos de cirugía abierta y mínima invasiva. Las tasas de positividad del margen y los rendimientos de los ganglios linfáticos no difirieron entre los dos grupos. El grupo abierto tuvo una tasa de complicaciones totales significativamente menor (27.6% vs 35.8%, p <0.0001), incluida una tasa menor de obstrucción postoperatoria del intestino delgado (1.2% vs 2.5%, p = 0.03). El grupo de cirugía mínimamente invasiva tuvo una tasa de infección de la herida significativamente menor (2.9% frente a 5.0%, p = 0,02) y una estancia hospitalaria más corta (8 frente a 9 días, p <0.0001). No hubo diferencias en la mortalidad a los 30 días.Los resultados están limitados por la calidad de la entrada de datos de registro.En esta población de pacientes, la proctectomía mínima invasiva demostró tasas de margen similares en comparación con la proctectomía abierta, con una estadía reducida pero una tasa más alta de complicaciones en general. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B190. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Results of laparoscopic resection in high-risk rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

Obesity, neoadjuvant-radiotherapy, tumour proximity to the anal verge and previous abdominal surgery are factors that might increase the intra-operative difficulty of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether patients with these 'high-risk' characteristics are subject to worse short- or long-term outcomes is debated. The aim of this study is to examine the short- and long-term clinical and oncological outcomes of patients receiving laparoscopic rectal surgery with any of these high-risk characteristics and compare them with patients that do not possess any of these high-risk features.

METHODS

For the purpose of this study data from consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic rectal cancer resections between 2006 and 2016 from two centres were analysed. High-risk patients were defined as patients with either one of the following characteristics: BMI ≥ 30, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, tumour < 8 cm from the anal verge and previous abdominal surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 313 patients were identified (227 high risk, 86 low risk). Short-term outcomes were similar between the two groups with the exception of blood loss and length of stay, which were higher in the high-risk group (10 vs 2.5 ml, p = 0.045; 7 vs 5 days, p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival (79.7% vs 79.8%, p = 0.757), disease-free survival (76.8% vs 69.3%, p = 0.175), distant disease-free interval (84.8% vs 79.7%, p = 0.231) and local recurrence-free interval (100%, 97.4%, p = 0.162) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Similar short- and long-term outcomes can be achieved in high-risk and low-risk patients receiving laparoscopic rectal surgery. The presented data support the suitability of laparoscopic surgery for this group of patients.

The impact of robotic total mesorectal excision on survival of patients with rectal cancer-a propensity matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), improving the quality of the surgery. We aim to compare the medium-term oncological outcomes of L-TME vs. robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who underwent L-TME or R-TME between 2011 and 2017. Patients presenting with metastatic disease or R1 resection were excluded. From a total of 680 patients, 136 cases of R-TME were matched based on age, gender, stage and time of follow-up with an equal number of patients who underwent L-TME. We compared 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Major complications were lower in the robotic group (13.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.04), highlighting the anastomotic leakage rate (7.4% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.01). The 3-year DFS rate for all stages was 69% for L-TME and 84% for R-TME (p = 0.02). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS was significantly higher in the R-TME group. OS was also significantly superior in the robotic group for every stage, reaching 86% in stage III. In the multivariate analysis, R-TME was a significant positive prognostic factor for distant metastasis (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.1, 0.6, p = 0.001) and OS (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.07, 0.4, p = 0.000). Moreover, major complications were also found to have a negative impact on OS (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.2, 21.6, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

R-TME for rectal cancer can achieve better oncological outcomes compared with L-TME, especially in stage III rectal cancers. However, a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm these findings.

Robotic surgery in colorectal cancer: the way forward or a passing fad

Introduced mainly to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopy, robotic colorectal surgery (CRS) has been touted to provide superior optics, ergonomics, and surgeon autonomy. This technological advancement is nonetheless associated with certain drawbacks, mainly involving its cost and the lack of unequivocal benefit over conventional laparoscopy. In this era of evidence-based medicine, robotic CRS remains predominantly a subject of individual institution case series, retrospective studies, matched comparisons at best, and repeated reviews of the above literature. This article provides a critique of the more contemporary data regarding the use of robotics in colorectal cancer surgery and the controversies surrounding the literature.

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.

Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

Master-slave manipulators (otherwise known as telemanipulators) were introduced into minimally invasive surgery in the 1990s to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. This led to the development of the first robotic surgical systems which, over the last 10 years, have rapidly gained acceptance among colorectal surgeons. Advantages of robotic surgical systems such as superior instrumentation and field of vision enable precise dissection in confined spaces such as the pelvis, which make it a particularly attractive tool for rectal surgery. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established and there is increasing evidence that it might offer superior peri- and postoperative outcomes when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery. Robotic rectal surgery is easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery and the creation of a structured training program for robotic rectal surgery in Europe has facilitated the learning of this technique in an environment that promotes patient safety and improved patient outcomes through equipment fidelity and operator skill. It is foreseeable that in the near future robotic systems will become part of routine surgical practice in colorectal surgery.

Open versus minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center cohort study on 237 consecutive patients

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is gaining popularity in rectal tumor treatment. However, contrasting data are available regarding its safety and efficacy. Our aim is to compare the open and MIS approaches for rectal cancer treatment. Two-hundred-thirty-seven patients were included: 113 open and 124 MIS rectal resections. After the propensity score matching analysis (PS), the cases were matched into 42 open and 42 MIS. Short- and long-term outcomes, and pathological findings were analyzed before and after PS. A further comparison of the same outcomes and costs was conducted between the laparoscopic and the robotic approaches. As a whole, a sphincter-preserving procedure was more frequently performed in the MIS group (110 vs 75 cases; p < 0.0001). The estimated blood loss during MIS was significantly lower than during open surgery [127 (± 92) vs 242 (± 122) mL; p < 0.0001], with clear advantages for the robotic approach over laparoscopy [113 (± 87) vs 147 (± 93) mL; p 0.01]. Complication rate was comparable between the two groups. A higher rate of CRM positivity was evidenced after open surgery (12.4% vs 1.7%; p 0.004). A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested in the MIS group [12.5 (± 6.4) vs 11 (± 5.6); p 0.04]. After PS, no difference in terms of perioperative outcomes was noted, with the only exception of a higher blood loss in the open approach [242 (± 122) vs 127 (± 92) mL; p < 0.0001]. For the matched cases, no difference in 5-year overall and disease-free survival was evidenced (p 0.50 and 0.88, respectively). Mean costs were higher for robotics as compared to laparoscopy [9812 (±1974)€ vs 9045 (± 1893)€; p 0.02]. MIS could be considered as a treatment option for rectal cancer. The PS study evidenced clear advantages in terms of estimated blood loss over the open surgery. Costs still remain the main limit for robotics.

Trends and outcomes in laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer from 2005 to 2016 using the ACS-NSQIP database, a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the use of laparoscopy for rectal cancer, especially after the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial determined that laparoscopy failed to meet non-inferiority compared with open surgery. With these new recommendations, the current practices for the treatment of rectal cancer across the country are unknown.

METHODS

Using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2016, resections for rectal cancer were studied. The proportion of laparoscopic versus open surgeries performed was determined by year, and 16 30-day outcomes were studied in each group. Multiple logistic regression was utilized to determine the association between laparoscopic and open technique as well as odds of outcome over time.

RESULTS

A total of 31,795 resections were performed, 12,371 (38.9%) laparoscopically. Laparoscopy increased yearly from 9.8% in 2005 to 52.8% in 2016. All 30-day outcomes tended to favor laparoscopy with the exception of operating room time.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that laparoscopic surgery has been widely adopted for treating patients with rectal cancer, and the trend continues despite the ACOSOG Z6051 recommendations suggesting that laparoscopic resection may not be best technique for resection. Stronger recommendations are needed to change current trends if laparoscopic surgery is not the appropriate treatment method for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. The aim of the present study was to determine if robotic surgery results in less conversion to an open operation than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies comparing a robotic vs. laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer surgery. The primary endpoint was conversion to open. All statistical analyses and data synthesis were conducted using STATA/IC version 14·2, Windows 64 bit (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-one studies were identified through electronic database search. After application of selection criteria as per PRISMA and MOOSE criteria, six RCTs and five PSM articles were analyzed. From the six RCTs, 512 robotic and 519 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower rate of conversion for the robotic surgery arm (4.1% vs. 8.1%, OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.00-0.57). Of the five PSM studies, 2097 robotic and 3053 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower conversion to open rate found in the robotic surgery cohort (7.4% vs. 15.6%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.30-0.47). Pooled RCT and PSM data demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates for robotic surgery (6.7% vs. 14.5%; OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.30-0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with reduced conversion to open surgery compared to a laparoscopic approach.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach-report of a single-center experience

AIM

Robotic surgery allows for a better visualization and more precise dissection especially in the narrow male pelvis and mid and lower third of the rectum. However, superiority to laparoscopic TME has yet to be proven. We therefore analyzed short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, 44 robotic (RTME) and 41 laparoscopic (LTME) low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision were performed at a single institution. Specimen quality was assessed and reported by an independent pathologist following international guidelines.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly regarding gender, age, ASA stage, BMI, and distance of the lower tumor margin from the anal verge. More patients in the RTME group underwent preoperative chemoradiation (43.2 vs. 19.5%, p = 0.019). The quality of the TME specimen was significantly better in the RTME group (complete/nearly complete/incomplete for RTME 97/0/3% and for LTME 78/17/5%, p = 0.03). The conversion rate tended to be lower in the RTME group (7 vs. 17%, p = 0.143). There was no difference in CRM positivity between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is safe and can improve the quality of TME for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopy. Any effect on long-term survival remains to be established.

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.

Predictors of surgical outcomes and survival in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: the interest of pelvimetry and restaging magnetic resonance imaging studies

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) requires a multimodal therapy tailored to the patient and tumor characteristics. Pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is necessary to stage the primary tumor, while restaging MRI, which is not systematically performed, may be of interest to identify poor responders to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NCRT), and redefine therapeutic approach. The EuMaRCS study group aimed to investigate the role and accuracy of pretreatment (including pelvimetry) and restaging MRIs in predicting surgical difficulties and surgical outcomes in LARC therapy.

METHODS

Patients with mid or low LARC who were administered NCRT, who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision, and for whom pretreatment and restaging MRIs were available, were included.

RESULTS

MRIs of 170 patients (median age: 61 years) were reanalyzed by the same radiologist. Pelvimetry differed significantly between males and females, but no gender difference was noted in the clinical and tumor characteristics. Tumor volume and tumor height assessed on the restaging MRI were associated, respectively, with operative time and estimated blood loss. Conversion was predicted by tumor volume, interischial distance and pubic tubercle height. The quality of the surgical resection was found to be a predictor of overall and disease-free survival. The sensitivity and specificity of tumor regression grade 1 to identify a pathologic complete response were 76.9% and 89.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In LARC management, pelvimetry and restaging MRI may be useful to predict surgical difficulties and surgical outcomes. However, the main independent predictor of patient survival appears to be the achievement of a successful surgical resection.

Single-Docking Full Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

Purpose. Robotic surgery has gradually gained importance in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, recent studies have not shown any advantages when compared with laparoscopy. The objective of this study is to report a single surgeon’s experience in robotic rectal surgery focusing on short-term and long-term outcomes. Methods. Sixty consecutive robotic rectal resections for adenocarcinoma, over a 4-year period, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Oncological outcomes and surgical resection quality as well as overall and disease-free survival were also assessed. Results. Thirty patients out of 60 (50%) underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Anterior rectal resection was performed in 52 cases (86.7%), and abdominoperineal resection was done in 8 cases (13.3%). Mean operative time was 283 (±68.6) minutes. The conversion rate was 5% (3 patients). Postoperative complications occurred in 10 cases (16.7%), and reoperation was required in 1 case (1.7%). Mean hospital stay was 9 days, while 30-day mortality was 1.7% (1 patients). The histopathological analysis reported a negative circumferential radial margin and distal margins in 100% of cases with a complete or near complete total mesorectal excision in 98.3% of patients. Mean follow-up was 32.8 months with a recurrence rate of 3.4% (2 patients). Overall survival and disease-free survival were 94% and 87%, respectively. Conclusions. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be safe and feasible when performed by highly skilled surgeons. It offers acceptable perioperative outcomes with a conversion rate notably lower than with the laparoscopic approach. Adequate pathological results and long-term oncological outcomes were also obtained.

Robotic colorectal surgery: more than a fantastic toy?

There has been a rapid rise in the number of robotic colorectal procedures worldwide since the da Vinci Surgical System robotic technology was approved for surgical procedures in the year 2000. Several recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown a significant difference in outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, these results from pooled data have not been supported by the initial results reported from the Robotic assisted versus laparoscopic assisted resection for rectal cancer trial. In this article, we examine the current evidence for robotic colorectal surgery, assess its features and functionality, evaluate its learning curve and provide our perspective on its future.