A Comparative Study of Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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.

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.

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 rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese patients is technically challenging. The technological advantages of robotic instruments can help overcome some of those challenges, but whether this translates to superior short-term outcomes is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of obese (BMI ≥ 30) robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery patients.

METHODS

All consecutive obese patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection surgery from three centres, two from the UK and one from Portugal, between 2006 and 2017 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and pathological T stage. Their short-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were identified (63 robotic, 159 laparoscopic). The 63 patients who received robotic surgery were matched with 61 laparoscopic patients. Cohort characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the robotic group, operative time was longer (260 vs 215 min; p = 0.000), but length of stay was shorter (6 vs 8 days; p = 0.014), and thirty-day readmission rate was lower (6.3% vs 19.7%; p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study population, robotic rectal surgery in obese patients resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower 30-day readmission rate but longer operative time when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Robotic rectal surgery in the obese may be associated with a quicker post-operative recovery and reduced morbidity profile. Larger-scale multi-centre prospective observational studies are required to validate these results.

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.

Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Recent randomized controlled data have shown possible limitations to laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer. The retrospective data, used as the basis for designing the trials, and which showed no problems with the technique, are discussed. The design of the randomized trials is discussed relative to the future meta-analysis of the recent data. The implications of the current findings on practice are discussed as surgeons try to adjust their practice to the new findings. The possible next steps for clinical and research innovations are put into perspective as new technology is considered to compensate for newly identified limitations in the laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Update in 2015

During the last decade, robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly gained acceptance among colorectal surgeons worldwide, with well-established safety and feasibility. The lower conversion rate and better surgical specimen quality of robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery potentially improves survival. Earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision is another favorable outcome. Long-term survival data are sparse with no evidence that robotic surgery offers major benefits in oncological outcomes. Although initial reports are promising, more rigorous scientific evaluation in multicenter, randomized clinical trials should be performed to definitely determine the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery.

National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Social and racial disparities have been identified as factors contributing to differences in access to care and oncologic outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate national disparities in minimally invasive surgery (MIS), both laparoscopic and robotic, across different racial, socioeconomic and geographic populations of patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We utilized the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database to identify patients with rectal cancer from 2004 to 2011 who had undergone definitive surgical procedures through either an open, laparoscopic or robotic approach. Inclusion criteria included only one malignancy and no adjuvant therapy. Multivariate analysis was performed to investigate differences in age, gender, race, income, education, insurance coverage, geographic setting and hospital type in relation to the surgical approach.

RESULTS

A total of 8633 patients were identified. The initial surgical approach included 46.5% open (4016), 50.9% laparoscopic (4393) and 2.6% robotic (224). In evaluating type of insurance coverage, patients with private insurance were most likely to undergo laparoscopic surgery [OR (odds ratio) 1.637, 95% CI 1.178-2.275], although there was a less statistically significant association with robotic surgery (OR 2.167, 95% CI 0.663-7.087). Patients who had incomes greater than $46,000 and received treatment at an academic center were more likely to undergo MIS (either laparoscopic or robotic). Race, education and geographic setting were not statistically significant characteristics for surgical approach in patients with rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer comprise approximately 53% of surgical procedures in patients not treated with adjuvant therapy. Robotics is associated with patients who have higher incomes and private insurance and undergo surgery in academic centers.