Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer was increasing, but there was an ongoing debate as to whether it provided any benefit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and prognosis of elective rectal resection for rectal cancer by robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

METHOD

Electronic databases were searched from their inception to 1 February 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison between robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) and performed a meta-analysis of all RCTs according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

11 RCTs including a total of 3107 cases were identified. Compared with LS, RS had a significantly lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.63; P < 0.0001), lower reoperation rate (odds ratio: 0.454; 95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 0.94; P = 0.03), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference: 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 1.04; P = 0.0004), a smaller incidence of positive circumferential margin (CRM) (odds ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.85; P = 0.004). RS had less time to first autonomous urination (mean difference: -0.78; 95% confidence interval: -1.15 to -0.41; P < 0.0001), less time to first defecation (mean difference: -0.40; 95% confidence interval: -0.78 to -0.01; P = 0.04) and less time to first flatus (mean difference: -0.45; 95% confidence interval: -0.89 to -0.01; P = 0.04), more operating time (mean difference: 23.46; 95% confidence interval: 15.76 to 31.16; P < 0.00001). Overall postoperative complication, short-term postoperative complication, estimate blood loss, hospital stays, Intraoperative complication, postoperative mortality, preventive ostomy rates, readmission did not differ significantly between approaches. (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery demonstrated superior safety, efficacy, and prognosis. This meta-analysis supports that RS is a safe and effective option.

Robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer in Africa: an outcome comparison endorsed by the Nigerian society for colorectal disorders

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) offer superior outcomes compared to open surgery. This study aimed to review the robotic and laparoscopic procedures for CRC performed in Africa, and compare the mean surgery duration, blood loss, hospital stay, rate of conversion, and prevalence of morbidity and mortality. This is the first study to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for CRC in Africa.

METHODS

A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, AJOL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched, identifying 2,259 publications, 33 of which were deemed eligible. Statistical analysis of outcomes was performed using "R". Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

The minimally invasive approach has been applied for CRC treatment in seven African countries: Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa. Laparoscopic surgeries accounted for 1,485 (95%) of cases, while 71 (5%) were robotic. Robotic procedures were associated with a longer surgery duration (256.41 min vs. 190.45 min, p < 0.0001), higher blood loss (226.48 mL vs. 141.55 mL, p < 0.0001), and a shorter hospital stay (4.52 days vs. 6.06 days, p = 0.85). Robotic procedures had a lower rate of conversion (3% vs. 8%, p = 0.29) and a lower prevalence of morbidity (19% vs. 26%, p = 0.26). Wound infection (24.49%) and ileus (57.14%) were the most common complications following laparoscopic and robotic procedures, respectively. There was no mortality from robotic surgeries; however, a prevalence of 0.39% (95% CI: 0;1.19) was recorded from laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes and compares the outcomes of advances in the treatment of CRC in the African setting, providing insights for policymakers, healthcare providers, and international organizations to make decisions regarding optimizing care for CRC patients in Africa.

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.

Research progress of robot and laparoscope in postoperative complications of rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumours worldwide, and it is also one of the major diseases that seriously threatens human life and health. At present, the main treatment for rectal cancer is still surgical treatment. The surgical methods have been rapidly developed from the previous open surgery to the current minimally invasive surgery. At present, there are two main minimally invasive surgeries: robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. Due to the particularity of rectal cancer surgery, more and more studies have shown that robotic rectal cancer surgery has more advantages than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether the incidence of postoperative complications after robotic rectal cancer surgery is lower than that after laparoscopy is not uniformly conclusive in the current study. Therefore, in this paper, we searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase and other databases, collected the latest published meta-analysis on postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer, and assessed the quality of the included meta-analysis by AMSTAR-2 evaluation tool, so as to explore the current research status and research quality of postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer. The results showed that compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic rectal cancer surgery could improve the postoperative urinary and reproductive function of male patients, but it could not be proved that robotic rectal cancer surgery could reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, urinary retention, intestinal obstruction, anastomotic bleeding, incision infection, pulmonary infection, venous thrombosis and abdominal abscess; however, the overall quality of meta-analysis of the results of each complication was low or very low. Therefore, multicenter, large-sample, high-quality prospective randomised controlled studies and high-quality meta-analysis are still needed to prove the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery in postoperative complications in the future.

Evaluation of an established colorectal robotic programme at an NHS district general hospital: audit of outcomes and systematic review of published data

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers potential advantages over traditional surgical approaches. This study aimed to assess outcomes from a district general hospital (DGH) robotic colorectal programme against published data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The robotic programme was established following simulator, dry/wet lab training, and proctoring. We performed a case series analysing technical, patient, and oncological outcomes extracted from a prospective database of colorectal RAS cases (2015-2022). A registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022300773; PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE) of single-centre colorectal series from established robotic centres (n>200 cases) was completed and compared to local data using descriptive summary statistics. Risk of bias assessment was performed using an adapted version of the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-two RAS cases were performed including 122 anterior resections, 56 APERs, 19 rectopexies, and 15 Hartmann's procedures. The median duration was 325 (IQR 265-400) min. Blood loss was < 100 ml in 97% of cases with 2 (0.9%) cases converted to open. Complications (Clavien-Dindo 3-5) occurred in 19 (8%) patients, with 3 (1.3%) deaths in < 30 days. Length of stay was 7 (IQR 5-11) days. In 169 rectal cancer cases, there were 9 (5.3%) cases with a positive circumferential or distal margin and lymph node yield of 17 (IQR 13-24). A systematic review of 1648 abstracts identified 13 studies from established robotic centres, totaling 4930 cases, with technical, patient, and oncological outcomes comparable to our own case series.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes from our robotic colorectal programme at a UK DGH are comparable with the largest published case series from world-renowned centres. Training and proctoring together with rolling audit must accompany the expansion of robotic surgery to safeguard outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although several studies compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy, most of them reflect the outcomes of the utilisation of older generation robotic platforms. The aim of this study is to compare the financial and clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy within a public healthcare system, utilising a multi-quadrant platform.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy between January 2017 and June 2020 in a public quaternary centre were included. Demographic characteristics, baseline clinical, tumour and operative variables, perioperative, histopathological outcomes and costs were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. Simple linear regression and generalised linear model analyses with gamma distribution and log-link function were used to determine the impact of the surgical approach on overall costs.

RESULTS

During the study period, 113 patients underwent minimally invasive proctectomy. Of these, 81 (71.7%) underwent a robotic proctectomy. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate (2.5% versus 21.8%;P = 0.002) at the expense of longer operating times (284 ± 83.4 versus 243 ± 89.8 min;P = 0.025). Regarding financial outcomes, robotic surgery was associated with increased theatre costs (A$23,019 ± 8235 versus A$15,525 ± 6382; P < 0.001) and overall costs (A$34,350 ± 14,770 versus A$26,083 ± 12,647; P = 0.003). Hospitalisation costs were similar between both approaches. An ASA ≥ 3, non-metastatic disease, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, non-restorative resection, extended resection, and a robotic approach were identified as drivers of overall costs in the univariate analysis. However, after performing a multivariate analysis, a robotic approach was not identified as an independent driver of overall costs during the inpatient episode (P = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Robotic proctectomy was associated with increased theatre costs but not with increased overall inpatient costs within a public healthcare setting. Conversion was less common for robotic proctectomy at the expense of increased operating time. Larger studies will be needed to confirm these findings and examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic proctectomy to further justify its penetration in the public healthcare system.

[Robot-assisted rectal resections-Scoping review for level 1a evidence and retrospective analysis of in-clinic data]

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted rectal resections are said to overcome the known difficulties of laparoscopic rectal surgery through technical advantages, leading to better treatment results; however, published studies reported very heterogeneous results. The aim of this paper is therefore to determine whether there is class 1a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resections. Furthermore, we would like to compare the treatment results of our clinic with the calculated effects from the literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search for class 1a evidence was performed and the calculated effects for 7 preselected outcomes were compared. We then analyzed all elective rectal resections performed in our hospital between 2017 and 2020 and compared the treatment outcomes with the results of the identified meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The results of the 7 identified meta-analyses did not show homogeneous effects for the outcomes operating time and conversion rate, while the calculated effects of the other outcomes studied were largely consistent. Our patient data showed that robotic rectal resections were associated with significantly longer operation times, while the other outcomes were hardly influenced by the surgical technique.

DISCUSSION

Although class 1a meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections already exist, they do not enable an evidence-based recommendation regarding the preference of one of the two surgical techniques. The analysis of our patient data showed that the results achieved in our clinic are largely consistent with the observed effects of the meta-analyses.

Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been proven valuable for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who received traditional surgery. While for those receiving minimally invasive surgery (MIS), its efficacy and safety remain debatable. Materials and Methods: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane libraries, and Web of science, were searched for relevant articles from their inception to February 23, 2022. Eligible articles were subjected to quality assessment and data extraction. The comparison between ERAS and traditional care (TC) was performed. Primary outcomes of this study were postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, time to the first anal exhaust, and defecation. Results: Thirteen cohort studies covering 4308 patients were included. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly shorter LOS (weight mean differences [WMD]: -1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.33 to -1.45; P < .001), lower incidence of postoperative complications (risk ratios [RR]: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.5-0.88; P < .001), lower 30-day readmission rate (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; P < .05), and shorter time to the first defecation (WMD: -1.93; 95% CI: -3.26 to -0.59; P < .001), but unimproved mortality, reoperation rate, and time to the first anal exhaust (P > .05) compared with those in the TC group. Conclusions: ERAS was effective and safe for CRC patients receiving MIS from a real-world perspective. Hence, the implementation of ERAS should be recommended for minimally invasive CRC surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CRD42022321333.

Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

AIM

An increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13-16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20-24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3-5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6-8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38-46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26-31%)].

CONCLUSION

Rectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

Combining staged laparoscopic colectomy with robotic completion proctectomy and ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) in ulcerative colitis for improved clinical and cosmetic outcomes: a single-center feasibility study and technical description

Robotic proctectomy has been shown to lead to better functional outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer. However, in ulcerative colitis (UC), the potential value of robotic proctectomy has not yet been investigated, and in this indication, the operation needs to be adjusted to the total colectomy typically performed in the preceding 6 months. In this study, we describe the technique and analyze outcomes of a staged laparoscopic and robotic three-stage restorative proctocolectomy and compare the clinical outcome with the classical laparoscopic procedure. Between December 2016 and May 2021, 17 patients underwent robotic completion proctectomy (CP) with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) for UC. These patients were compared to 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic CP and IPAA, following laparoscopic total colectomy with end ileostomy 6 months prior by the same surgical team at our tertiary referral center. 27 patients underwent a 3-stage procedure for refractory UC (10 in the lap. group vs. 17 in the robot group). Return to normal bowel function and morbidity were comparable between the two groups. Median length of hospital stay was the same for the robotic proctectomy/IPAA group with 7 days [median; IQR (6–10)], compared to the laparoscopic stage II with 7.5 days [median; IQR (6.25–8)]. Median time to soft diet was 2 days [IQR (1–3)] vs. 3 days in the lap group [IQR 3 (3–4)]. Two patients suffered from a major complication (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3a) in the first 90 postoperative days in the robotic group vs. one in the laparoscopic group. Perception of cosmetic results were favorable with 100% of patients reporting to be highly satisfied or satisfied in the robotic group. This report demonstrates the feasibility of a combined laparoscopic and robotic staged restorative proctocolectomy for UC, when compared with the traditional approach. Robotic pelvic dissection and a revised trocar placement in staged proctocolectomy with synergistic use of both surgical techniques with their individual advantages will likely improve overall long-term functional results, including an improved cosmetic outcome.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates.

RESULTS

Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

Options for Low Rectal Cancer: Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision

Low rectal cancers (LRCs) may offer a difficult technical challenge even to experienced colorectal surgeons. Although laparoscopic surgery offers a superior exposure of the pelvis when compared with open approach, its role in rectal cancer surgery has been controversial. Robotic platforms are well suited for difficult pelvic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, degree of articulation of instruments, precise movements, and better ergonomics. The robot may be suitable especially in the anatomically narrow pelvis such as in male and obese patients. Meticulous dissection in critical steps, such as splenic flexure takedown, nerve-sparing mesorectal excision, and distal margin clearance, are potential technical advantages. In addition, robotic rectal resections are associated with lower conversion rates to open surgery, less blood loss, and shorter learning curve with similar short-term quality of life outcomes, similar rates of postoperative complications, and equivalent short-term surrogate outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery approach, if used correctly, can enhance the skills and the capabilities of the well-trained surgeon during minimally invasive procedures for LRC.

Robotic Surgery in Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The most effective and curative treatment is surgery, and the standard procedure is total mesorectal excision, initially performed by open surgery and posteriorly by minimally invasive techniques. Robotic surgery is an emerging technology that is expected to overcome the limitations of the laparoscopic approach. It has several advantages, including a stable camera platform with high definition three-dimensional image, flexible instruments with seven degrees of freedom, a third arm for fixed retraction, fine motion scaling, excellent dexterity, ambidextrous capability, elimination of physiological tremors and better ergonomics, that facilitate a steady and precise tissue dissection. The main technical disadvantages are the loss of tactile sensation and tensile feedback and the complex installation process. The aim of the present study is to review the importance and benefits of robotic surgery in rectal cancer, particularly in comparison with the laparoscopic approach. Intraoperative estimated blood loss, short and long-term outcomes as well as pathological outcomes were similar between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The operative time is usually longer in robotic surgery and the high costs are still its major drawback. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer demonstrated lower conversion rate to open surgery and benefits in urinary and sexual functions and has been established as a safe and feasible technique.

Intraoperative complications during laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

Intraoperative complication during laparoscopic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is a common complication occurring in 11% to 15% of the cases. They are probably underestimated because not systematically reported. The most frequent intraoperative complications are haemorrhage (3-7%), tumour perforation (1-4%), bowel injury (1-3%), ureter injury (1%), urogenital injury (2%), other organ injury (<1%), and anastomotic complications (1%). The mechanisms, management and prevention of vascular port injury, inferior mesenteric artery bleeding, small bowel and colon perforation, ureteral and urethral injury, pelvic nerve damage, tumour perforation and anastomotic failure are described. This review underlines the necessity to prevent intraoperative complication to avoid operative death and severe side-effects.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The application of robotic surgery for rectal cancer is increasing steadily. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare pathologic outcomes among patients with rectal cancer who underwent open rectal surgery (ORS) versus robotic rectal surgery (RRS).

Methods

We systematically searched the literature of EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) comparing ORS with RRS.

Results

Fourteen nRCTs, including 2711 patients met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.16, P = 0.13), number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD: −0.31, 95% CI, −2.16 to 1.53, P = 0.74), complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rates (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.78, P = 0.83) and the length of distal resection margins (DRM) (WMD: −0.01, 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.25, P = 0.96) did not differ significantly between the RRS and ORS groups.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence, robotic resection for rectal cancer provided equivalent pathological outcomes to ORS in terms of CRM positivity, number of harvested lymph nodes and complete TME rates and DRM.

Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: evolution over a decade

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Average treatment effect of robotic versus laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to estimate what would have happened if all patients treated with laparoscopy for rectal cancer had instead been treated with the robotic technique.

METHODS

To estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) of the robotic technique over the laparoscopic approach, data from patients treated at two centres between 2007 and 2018 were used to obtain counterfactual outcomes using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) adjustment.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 261 patients, of which 177 and 84 patients had undergone robotic surgery and standard laparoscopy, respectively. After IPW adjustment, the difference between the groups was similar in the pseudo-population. The average conversion rate would fall by an estimated 6.1% if all procedures had been robotic (p = 0.045). All other post-operative variables showed no differences regardless of the approach.

CONCLUSION

ATE estimation suggests that robotic rectal cancer surgery could be associated with a lower conversion rate. The approach did not affect the post-operative morbidity rates or the operative time.

Operative and long-term oncological outcomes in patients undergoing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes after robotic versus laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective robotic and laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were included. Perioperative clinical characteristics, postoperative short- and long-term outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

There were 72 and 44 patients in robotic (RG) and laparoscopic (LG) groups respectively. No differences were detected regarding patients' demographics, histopathologic outcomes, conversion rates and 30-day overall postoperative complication rates. Operative time was longer in the RG (341 ± 111.7 vs. 263 ± 97.5 min, p = 0.001) and length of stay was longer in the LG (4.4 ± 1.9 vs. 6.4 ± 2.9 days, p = 0.001). The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar (97.1% and 94.9%, p = 0.78; 86.2% and 82.7%, p = 0.72) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

This study showed both short and long-term outcomes of a limited number of included patients between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery were similar. However, future studies and randomized trials are necessary to establish these findings.

Hospital robotic use for colorectal cancer care

The use of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer continues to increase. However, not all organizations offer patients the option of robotic intervention. This study seeks to understand organizational characteristics associated with the utilization of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. We conducted a retrospective study of hospitals identified in the United States, State of Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset, and linked data for those hospitals with the American Hospital Association Survey, Area Health Resource File and the Health Community Health Assessment Resource Tool Set. The study population included all robotic surgeries for colorectal cancer patients in 159 hospitals from 2013 to 2015. Logistic regressions identifying organizational, community, and combined community and organizational variables were utilized to determine associations. Results indicate that neither hospital competition nor disease burden in the community was associated with increased odds of robotic surgery use. However, per capita income (OR 1.07 95% CI 1.02, 1.12), average total margin (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001, 1.02) and large-sized hospitals compared to small hospitals (OR: 5.26, 95% CI 1.13, 24.44) were associated with increased odds of robotic use. This study found that market conditions within the U.S. State of Florida are not primary drivers of hospital use of robotic surgery. The ability for the population to pay for such services, and the hospital resources available to absorb the expense of purchasing the required equipment, appear to be more influential.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic rectal resection: outcomes and learning curve of the initial 100 cases

Background

Following several landmark trials, laparoscopic rectal resection has reached standard clinical practice. Current literature is undecided on the advantages of robotic rectal resection and little is known on its learning curve. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the first 100 robotic rectal resections to the laparoscopic approach in a teaching hospital experienced in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of a prospective cohort of all consecutive rectal resections between January 2012 and September 2019 at a single center. All laparoscopic cases were compared to the robotic approach. Outcomes included operative time, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay.

Results

Out of the 326 consecutive resections, 100 were performed robotically and 220 laparoscopically, the remaining 6 open cases were excluded. Median operative time was lower for robotic cases (147 (121–167) versus 162 (120–218) minutes P = 0.024). Overall morbidity was lower in robotic cases (25% versus 50%, P < 0.001), while major morbidity was similar. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 11% (8/70) of robotic and 15% (18/120) of laparoscopic anastomoses, despite more anastomoses in the robotic group (70%, 70/100 versus 55%, 120/220, P = 0.001). Median length of stay was 4 (4–7) days after a robotic and 6 (5–9) days after a laparoscopic procedure.

Discussion

Implementation of a robotic rectal resection program in an experienced laparoscopic surgery center was associated with reduced operative time, length of stay, and fewer complications despite a learning curve.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature

The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly increased in Japan, since the government approved the procedure for national insurance coverage in April 2018. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome some limitations of laparoscopic surgery, especially in the narrow pelvis, providing a three-dimensional view, articulated instruments, and a stable camera platform. Although meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate the superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery with respect to the short-term clinical outcomes, the published findings suggest that robotic surgery may be potentially beneficial for patients who are obese, male, or patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. The safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for lateral lymph node dissection, the standard procedure for locally advanced lower rectal cancer in Japan, have been demonstrated in some retrospective studies. However, additional prospective, randomized trials are required to determine the actual benefits of robotic surgery to ameliorate the urogenital and oncological outcomes. The cost of this approach is a long-standing principal concern. A literature search showed that the cost of robotic surgery for rectal cancer was 1.3-2.5 times higher per patient than that for the laparoscopic approach. We herein describe our surgical technique using a da Vinci Surgical System (S/Si/Xi) with 10 years of experience in performing robotic surgery. We also review current evidence regarding short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes, lateral lymph node dissection, and the cost of the procedure.