Exploring and adjusting for potential learning effects in ROLARR: a randomised controlled trial comparing robotic-assisted vs. standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection

[Robotic rectal surgery]

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent cancerous diseases in industrial nations, whereby tumors of the rectum constitute approximately 30-40% of all colorectal cancers. In addition to the implementation and establishment of novel neoadjuvant concepts for the treatment of rectal cancer, there has been a continuous evolution of surgical techniques in recent years towards minimally invasive surgery. In this respect robot-assisted surgery has become more and more popular despite seemingly weak evidence regarding clinical benefits and the not to be ignored economic aspects; however, recently published high-quality studies provide new evidence showing advantages for a robotic resection in patients suffering from rectal cancer. Thus, the progressive implementation of robotic surgical systems is increasingly attaining a scientific foundation.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy is considered the standard of care in the surgical management of rectal prolapse syndromes in fit patients. We aimed to investigate the outcomes after robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVR) and compare them with our laparoscopic series (LVR). Additionally, we report the learning curve of RVR. As the financial aspect for the use of a robotic platform remains an important obstacle to allow generalized adoption, cost-effectiveness was also evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospectively maintained data set including 149 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive ventral rectopexy between December 2015 and April 2021 was reviewed. The results after a median follow-up of 32 months were analyzed. Additionally, a thorough assessment of the economic aspect was performed.

RESULTS

On a total of 149 consecutive patients 72 underwent a LVR and 77 underwent a RVR. Median operative time was comparable for both groups (98 min (RVR) vs. 89 min (LVR); p = 0.16). Learning curve showed that an experienced colorectal surgeon required approximately 22 cases in stabilizing the operative time for RVR. Overall functional results were similar in both groups. There were no conversions or mortality. There was, however, a significant difference (p < 0.01) in hospital stay in favor of the robotic group (1 day vs. 2 days). The overall cost of RVR was higher than LVR.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study shows that RVR is a safe and feasible alternative for LVR. With specific adjustments in surgical technique and robotic materials, we developed a cost-effective way of performing RVR.

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

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

Comparing robotic with laparoscopic beyond total mesorectal excision for advanced rectal cancer-a propensity-matched analysis

AIM

Robotic surgery is increasingly being used for rectal resection, with short-term benefits such as reduced hospital stay, faster bowel recovery and fewer complications. However, its utility for advanced rectal cancers requiring beyond total mesorectal excision has not been adequately evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic approaches for extended rectal resection, with postoperative and short-term oncological outcomes as endpoints.

METHOD

A retrospective, single-centre study of patients with advanced rectal cancer requiring extended rectal resection between January 2017 and December 2022 was carried out. Beyond total mesorectal excisions included pelvic exenteration, en bloc soft tissue or partial organ resection with the rectum, and lateral pelvic node dissection. Propensity score matching in a 4:1 ratio of laparoscopic to robotic was performed with age, sex, comorbidities, body mass index, organs involved, clinical T stage and colonoscopic obstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 425 beyond total mesorectal excisions were performed by minimally invasive approaches during the study period, and after propensity matching 228 laparoscopic operations were compared with 57 robotic resections. All baseline characteristics were balanced. No difference in blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, positive resection margin or nodal yield was found, but there was a somewhat longer operating duration in robotics. The 2-year disease-free and overall survival were also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in postoperative or short-term oncological outcomes were found between robotic and laparoscopic beyond total mesorectal excisions for advanced tumours when performed by teams experienced in both robotics and laparoscopy.

Robot-assisted pelvic and renal surgery compared with laparoscopic or open surgery: Literature review of cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical experiences and cost-effectiveness by comparing robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic- or open surgery for pelvic and renal operations.

METHODS

A narrative review was carried out.

RESULTS

When using robotic-assisted surgery, oncological and functional results are similar to after laparoscopic or open surgery. One exception may be a shorter survival in cancer of the cervix uteri. In addition, postoperative complications after robotic-assisted surgery are similar, bleeding and transfusion needs are less, and the hospital stay is shorter but the preparation of the operating theater before and after surgery and the operation times are longer. Finally, robot-assisted surgery has, in several studies, been reported to be not cost-effective primarily due to high investment costs. However, more recent studies provide improved cost-effectiveness estimates due to more effective preparation of the operating theater before surgery, improved surgeon experience, and decreased investment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications and functional and oncological outcomes after robot-assisted surgery are similar to open surgery and laparoscopic surgery. The cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery is likely to equal or surpass the alternatives.

The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring

The next generation of surgical robotics is poised to disrupt healthcare systems worldwide, requiring new frameworks for evaluation. However, evaluation during a surgical robot's development is challenging due to their complex evolving nature, potential for wider system disruption and integration with complementary technologies like artificial intelligence. Comparative clinical studies require attention to intervention context, learning curves and standardized outcomes. Long-term monitoring needs to transition toward collaborative, transparent and inclusive consortiums for real-world data collection. Here, the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring (IDEAL) Robotics Colloquium proposes recommendations for evaluation during development, comparative study and clinical monitoring of surgical robots-providing practical recommendations for developers, clinicians, patients and healthcare systems. Multiple perspectives are considered, including economics, surgical training, human factors, ethics, patient perspectives and sustainability. Further work is needed on standardized metrics, health economic assessment models and global applicability of recommendations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficiency of the Robotic Platform in Improving the Rate of Sphincter Preservation in Patients With Mid and Low Rectal Cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the robotic platform can have a positive impact on the rate of sphincter preservation in patients with rectal tumors, undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), in comparison with laparoscopic or open TME. We also analyzed and compared short-term outcomes.

Methods

A prospectively collected robotic database was reviewed and compared with the trust and national data. Three groups were designed according to the surgical technique: open, laparoscopic and robotic. This includes all resections for mid and low rectal cancer which were performed with the robotic platform, over a period of 4 years, versus the trust data for the same period.

Results

Two hundred ninety-seven patients with mid and low rectal cancers were analyzed. Demographics for the groups (gender, age, and body mass index) were similar but distance from anal verge was shorter in the robotic group (7 vs. 8.5 cm, P < 0.001). The percentage of abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate was significantly lower in the robotic group (13.5% vs. 39.6% vs. 52.4% for the open group, P < 0.001). Median length of stay, complication rate, and positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate for the robotic group were also statistically significantly lower than those for both laparoscopic and open groups.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer is safe and feasible, and could help surgeons perform ultra-low anterior resections, rather than APRs and save patients' sphincters. Positive CRM is low, which could lead to improved oncological outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for left-sided colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study

AIM

The use of robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer is increasing in Denmark; however, it is yet to be established if the robotic approach results in improved clinical outcomes compared with the corresponding laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer at a national level.

METHOD

The study is a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centres in Denmark treated with surgery with curative intent in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic left colectomy or sigmoidectomy during the period 2014-2019 were included. To adjust for confounding, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed and the groups were compared for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, performance score, year of diagnosis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, left colectomy or sigmoidectomy, tumour localization, use of stoma or stenting and pathological T (pT) category.

RESULTS

A total of 5532 patients were available for analysis, and after PSM in a ratio of 2:1, 1392 laparoscopic and 696 robotic cases were identified. After matching we found a lower conversion rate and a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (5.8% vs. 11%, p < 0.001 and 27 vs. 24, p < 0.001, respectively). Further, we found a higher proportion of patients with a lymph node yield of 12 or more in the robotic group (97% vs. 94.8%, p = 0.02). Plane of dissection, radicality and pathological disease stages did not differ between the two groups. We found no difference in either overall surgical (13% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.23) or medical (5.6% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.49) postoperative complications and no difference in 30-day (p = 0.369) or 90-day mortality (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate and a significantly higher lymph node yield than the laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar in the two groups.

[Robot-assisted visceral surgery in Germany : Analysis of the current status and trends of the last 5 years using data from the StuDoQ|Robotics registry]

Robot-assisted systems have been increasingly used in general surgery for several years. Accordingly, the number of systems installed in Germany has also rapidly increased. While around 100 robot-assisted systems were used in German hospitals in 2018, this figure had already risen to more than 200 by 2022. The aim of this article is to present the current state of development and trends in robotic surgery in Germany. For this purpose, data from the StuDoQ|Robotics register were analyzed. Furthermore, a descriptive analysis of concomitant diagnosis-related groups (DRG) data was carried out via the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), for a better assessment of the representativeness of the StuDoQ|Robotics register data. In both data sets, the annual number of robot-assisted visceral surgery procedures in Germany steadily increased. Compared to the DRG data, only 3.7% up to a maximum of 36.7% of all robot-assisted procedures performed were documented in the StuDoQ|Robotics register, depending on the type of procedure. Colorectal resections were the most frequent robot-assisted procedures (StuDoQ: 32.5% and 36.7% vs. DRG data: 24.2% and 29.7%) and had, for example, low mortality rates (StuDoQ: 1% and 1% vs. DRG data: 2.3% and 1.3%). Due to the low coverage rates of robot-assisted esophageal, gastric, pancreatic and liver interventions, no valid statements could be derived from the StuDoQ data for these areas. With the current coverage rates, the informative value of the StuDoQ|Robotics register is considerably limited for some types of intervention. In the future, measures should therefore be explored that lead to a significant increase in the coverage rates.

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

Introduction

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Systematic review registration

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

Short learning curve in transition from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a prospective study from a Finnish Tertiary Referral Centre

The narrow pelvis causes special challenges in surgery, and robotic-assisted surgery has been proven beneficial in these circumstances. While robotic surgery has some specific advantages in rectal cancer surgery, there is still limited evidence of the learning curve of the technique involved. The aim here was to study the transition from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted surgery among experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The data for this study were collected from a prospectively compiled register that includes patients operated on by the Da Vinci Xi robot in Tampere University Hospital. Each consecutive rectal cancer patient was included. The information on the surgical and oncological outcomes was analysed. The learning curve was assessed using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. CUSUM already demonstrated an overall positively sloped curve at the beginning of the study, with neither the conversion rate nor morbidity reaching unacceptable thresholds. Conversions (4%) and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-IV 15%, no intraoperative complications) were rare. One patient died within one month and the death was not procedure-associated. While surgical and oncological outcomes were similar among all surgeons, the console times showed a decreasing trend and were shorter among those with more experience in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery can be safely adapted by experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons.

Robotic-assisted surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a long but safe learning curve

The number of robotic-assisted procedures for rectal cancer is rising. The risk of this procedure when performed by surgeon with limited robotic experience is unknown and the precise duration of the learning curve debated. We, therefore, aimed to analyze the learning curve and its related safety in a single center before the development of mentoring programs. We prospectively recorded all robotic procedures performed for colorectal cancer between 2015 and 2020 by a single surgeon. Operative times for partial and total proctectomy were analyzed. The learning curve was defined by comparison with the standard duration of the laparoscopic procedure performed in expert centers (published in GRECCAR 5 and GRECCAR 6 trials) and calculated using a cumulative summation for learning curve test (LC-CUSUM). Among the 174 patients operated for colorectal cancer, we analyzed the outcomes of the 89 patients operated by partial and total robotic proctectomy. To reach repeatedly the same surgical duration as laparoscopic procedure for partial or complete proctectomy, the LC-CUSUM identified a learning curve of 57 patients. A severe morbidity in this population, defined by Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3, was observed in 15 cases (16.8%) with an anastomotic leak rate of 13.5%. The rate of completeness of mesorectal excision was 90% and the mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 15 (± 9). Using operative time as end-point, the learning curve of rectal cancer robotic surgery identified a cut-off of 57 patients. The technic remained safe with acceptable morbidity and oncological outcomes.

Integrating a tumour appropriate transanal or robotic assisted approach to total mesorectal excision in high-volume rectal cancer practice is safe and cost-effective

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is accepted as the gold standard for oncological resection in rectal cancer. The best approach to TME is debated and often surgeons will select a preferred approach. In this study, we aimed to describe how both robotic (R-TME) and transanal (TaTME) TME can be integrated into high-volume rectal cancer surgeon practice with a comparison of clinical and oncological outcomes and cost analysis. A prospective comparative cohort study was performed in a high-volume rectal cancer centre comparing the previous 50 R-TME and 50 TaTME performed by the same surgeon. A comparison of tumour characteristics was performed to highlight a specific role for each technique. Clinical outcomes (operative duration, length of stay (LOS) and perioperative morbidity), cancer quality indicators (resection margin and completeness of TME) and cost analysis were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS, version 20. R-TME was preferred in mid-rectal cancer, compared to TaTME preferred in low rectal cancer (9 cm vs. 5 cm, p < 0.001). Operative duration was longer in R-TME compared to TaTME (265 vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). Major complications (CD III-IV complications) were experienced in 10% of R-TME and 14% of TaTME (p = 0.476). A 98% (n = 49) clear R0 resection margin was achieved with both R-TME and TaTME and mesorectum quality defined as 'complete' in 86% (n = 43) in R-TME and 82% (n = 41) in TaTME. Length of hospital stay was shorter in R-TME (5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.624). An overall difference of €131 was observed favouring TaTME. In high-volume rectal cancer surgery practice, both R-TME and TaTME can be practised and tailored according to patients and tumour characteristics, with comparable clinical and cancer outcomes and is cost-effective.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Intra- and Post-Operative Complications

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic surgery is attracting ever-growing interest for its potential advantages such as small incisions, fine movements, and magnification of the operating field. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the differences in perioperative outcomes between the two approaches.

METHODS

We screened the main online databases from inception to May 2023. We included studies in English enrolling adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery. We used the following exclusion criteria: surgery with the involvement of thoracic esophagus, and patients affected by severe heart, pulmonary and end-stage renal disease. We compared intra- and post-operative complications, length of hospitalization, and costs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs were included. We found no differences in the rate of anastomotic leakage, cardiovascular complications, estimated blood loss, readmission, deep vein thrombosis, length of hospitalization, mortality, and post-operative pain between robotic and laparoscopic surgery; post-operative pneumonia was less frequent in the robotic approach. The conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the robotic approach, which was characterized by shorter time to first flatus but higher operative time and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic gastrointestinal surgery has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic technique such as lower conversion rate, faster recovery of bowel movement, but it has higher economic costs.

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

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

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: A Narrative Review and Description of the Technique

Robotic surgery may offer significant advantages for treating extraperitoneal rectal cancer. Although laparoscopy has been shown to be safe and effective, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging and is still performed in selected centers. Robotic anterior resection (RAR) may overcome the drawback of conventional laparoscopy, providing high-quality surgery with favorable oncological outcomes. Moreover, recent data show how RAR offers clinical and oncological benefits when affording difficult TMEs, such as low and advanced rectal tumors, in terms of complication rate, specimen quality, recurrence rate, and survival. This series aims to review the most recent and relevant literature, reporting mid- and long-term oncological outcomes and focusing on minimally invasive RAR for low rectal cancer.

Learning curve of robotic rectal surgery using risk-adjusted cumulative summation: a 5-year institutional experience

PURPOSE

Outline learning phases of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer and compare surgical and clinical outcomes between each phase of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery and the mastery phase of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2020, 210 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at Sendai Medical Center. We performed conventional laparoscopic surgery in 110 patients and, laparoscopic surgery in 100 patients. The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative summation method, risk-adjusted cumulative summation method, and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The risk-adjusted cumulative summation learning curve was divided into three phases: phase 1 (cases 1-48), phase 2 (cases 49-80), and phase 3 (cases 81-100). Duration of hospital stay (13.1 days vs. 18.0 days, respectively; p = 0.016) and surgery (209.1 min vs. 249.5 min, respectively; p = 0.045) were significantly shorter in phase 3 of the robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group. Blood loss volume was significantly lower in phase 1 of the robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (17.7 ml vs. 79.7 ml, respectively; p = 0.036). The International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly lower in the robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery group (p = 0.0131).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was safe and demonstrated better surgical and clinical outcomes, including a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and a shorter surgical duration, than conventional laparoscopic surgery. After experience with at least 80 cases, tactile familiarity can be acquired from visual information only (visual haptic feedback).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN reference no. UMIN000019857.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Assessing the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicenter study considering procedural safety, pathological safety, and efficiency

PURPOSE

Evidence regarding the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is scarce and of low quality. Case-mix is mostly not taken into account, and learning curves are based on operative time, while preferably clinical outcomes and literature-based limits should be used. Therefore, this study aims to assess the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in four Dutch centers. The primary aim was to assess the safety of the individual and institutional learning curves using a RA-CUSUM analysis based on intraoperative complications, major postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome (positive circumferential margin or incomplete TME specimen). The learning curve for efficiency was assessed using a LC-CUSUM analysis for operative time. Outcomes of patients before and after the learning curve were compared.

RESULTS

In this study, seven participating surgeons performed robot-assisted total mesorectal excisions in 531 patients. Learning curves for intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined literature-based limits. The LC-CUSUM for operative time showed lengths of the learning curve ranging from 12 to 35 cases. Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes did not differ between patients operated during and after the learning curve.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined limits and is therefore suggested to be safe. Using operative time as a surrogate for efficiency, the learning curve is estimated to be between 12 and 35 procedures.

Functional outcomes after robotic or laparoscopic intersphincteric resection - An inverse probability weighting analysis

BACKGROUND

Functional outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic Intersphincteric resections (ISR) have not been studied adequately. We aimed to compare the bowel functions after robotic or laparoscopic ISR.

METHODS

Single-center, cross-sectional study of minimally invasive ISR. Functional outcomes were assessed on the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), Wexner incontinence scale, and the Kirwan grading. Baseline characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, T stage, tumour height, preoperative radiation, and anastomotic configuration) in the groups were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

Functional outcomes were assessed for 132 patients, 85 laparoscopic and 47 robotic ISR were performed. After IPTW, baseline characteristics were well balanced (mean deviation <0.1). In the weighted cohorts of laparoscopic and robotic ISR, major LARS was observed in 18.1% and 18.5% (p - 0.182) and major incontinence on the Wexner scale in 18.4% and 22.8% (p - 0.443), respectively. The Kirwan grades of incontinence were also similar between the groups (p - 0.794).

CONCLUSION

No differences in bowel functions on the LARS and incontinence scales between laparoscopic and robotic ISR were found in the present study.

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group’s practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction

There are standard treatment guidelines for the surgical management of rectal cancer, that are advocated by recognized physician societies. But, owing to disparities in access and affordability of various treatment options, there remains an unmet need for personalizing these international guidelines to Indian settings.

Methods

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) set up the Indian rectal cancer expert group, with a pre-defined selection criterion and comprised of the leading surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons managing rectal cancer in India. Following the constitution of the expert Group, members identified three areas of focus and 12 clinical questions. A thorough review of the literature was performed, and the evidence was graded as per the levels of evidence by Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The consensus was built using the modified Delphi methodology of consensus development. A consensus statement was accepted only if ≥75% of the experts were in agreement.

Results

Using the results of the review of the literature and experts’ opinions; the expert group members drafted and agreed on the final consensus statements, and these were classified as “strong or weak”, based on the GRADE framework.

Conclusion

The expert group adapted international guidelines for the surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer to Indian settings. It will be vital to disseminate these to the wider surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons’ community in India.

A Comparative Analysis of Short-term Patient Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The popularity of robot-assisted colorectal surgery has risen over recent years; however, patient-related advantages over laparoscopic surgery remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare short-term patient outcomes following robotic and laparoscopic partial or complete rectal resections.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 5 large tertiary care Kaiser Permanente medical centers across Southern California.

PATIENTS

There were 863 consecutive robotic and laparoscopic pelvic rectal surgeries, including low anterior resections, proctectomies with coloanal anastomosis, and abdominoperineal resections, performed between January 2010 and December 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Short-term patient outcomes, including postoperative length of hospital stay, emergency department returns, and 30-day readmissions, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 458 surgical procedures were performed via robotic versus 405 via laparoscopic approaches. The robotic group had a higher proportion of male patients (57.4% vs 50.4%; p = 0.04) and a higher proportion of obese (27.1% vs 26.9%; p = 0.02) and overweight patients (36.9% vs 35.1%; p = 0.01). There was no difference in underlying comorbidities of diabetes or smoking, or in the rate of ileostomy creation. After adjusting for Charlson Comorbidity Index, no significant difference was found in emergency department returns between robotic and laparoscopic surgical patients ( p = 0.17). There were no significant outcome differences between the 2 groups with regards to length of stay during procedure, 30-day readmission, or death rates.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the lack of randomization in its design, selection of patients for surgical approach, and training and familiarity with robotic rectal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows length of stay during the procedure and postoperative 30-day readmission rates were generally similar between robotic and laparoscopic patients. Male patients and those with a higher BMI were more likely to have been operated via a robotic method. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B857 .

UN ANLISIS COMPARATIVO DE LOS RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO DE LOS PACIENTES DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA RECTAL LAPAROSCPICA VERSUS LA ROBTICA

ANTECEDENTES:La popularidad de la cirugía colorrectal asistida por robot ha aumentado en los últimos años. Sin embargo, las ventajas relacionadas con el paciente siguen siendo inciertas sobre la cirugía laparoscópica.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo era comparar los resultados de los pacientes a corto plazo después de resecciones rectales completas o parciales robóticas y laparoscópicas.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:El estudio se llevó a cabo en cinco grandes centros médicos de Kaiser Permanente de atención terciaria en el sur de California.PACIENTES:Se realizaron 863 cirugías robóticas y laparoscópicas rectales pélvicas consecutivas, incluidas resecciones anteriores bajas, proctectomías con anastomosis coloanal y resecciones abdominoperineales, realizadas entre enero de 2010 y diciembre de 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Resultados de los pacientes a corto plazo, incluida la duración de la estancia hospitalaria después del procedimiento, los retornos al departamento de emergencias y los reingresos y la mortalidad a los 30 días.RESULTADOS:Se realizaron un total de 458 procedimientos quirúrgicos a través del robot versus 405 con laparoscopia. El grupo robótico tuvo una mayor proporción de pacientes masculinos (57,4 vs 50,4%, p = 0,04) y una mayor proporción de pacientes obesos (27,1 vs 26,9%, p = 0,02) y con sobrepeso (36,9 vs 35,1%, p = 0,01). No hubo diferencia en las comorbilidades subyacentes de la diabetes y el tabaquismo, y en la tasa de creación de ileostomía. Después de ajustar por el índice de comorbilidad de Charlson, no se encontraron diferencias significativas en los retornos al servicio de urgencias entre los pacientes robóticos y laparoscópicos ( p = 0,17). No hubo diferencias significativas en los resultados entre los dos grupos con respecto a la duración de la estadía durante el procedimiento, las tasas de readmisión a los 30 días y las tasas de muerte.LIMITACIONES:Falta de aleatorización en el diseño del estudio, selección de pacientes para abordaje quirúrgico, capacitación y familiaridad con la cirugía rectal robótica.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio muestra la duración de la estadía durante el procedimiento y las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días después del procedimiento fueron generalmente similares entre los pacientes robóticos y laparoscópicos. Los pacientes masculinos y aquellos con un índice de masa corporal más alto tenían más probabilidades de haber sido operados mediante un método robótico. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B857 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Prospective multicentre observational cohort to assess quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness following minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer in 'dedicated centres' in the Netherlands (VANTAGE trial): a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for rectal cancer, which can be performed using open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal technique. Large prospective (randomised controlled) trials comparing these techniques are lacking, do not take into account the learning curve and have short-term or long-term oncological results as their primary endpoint, without addressing quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Comparative data with regard to these outcomes are necessary to identify the optimal minimally invasive technique and provide guidelines for clinical application.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial will be a prospective observational multicentre cohort trial, aiming to compare laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision in adult patients with rectal cancer performed by experienced surgeons in dedicated centres. Data collection will be performed in collaboration with the prospective Dutch ColoRectal Audit and the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer Cohort. Quality of life at 1 year postoperatively will be the primary outcome. Functional outcomes, cost-effectiveness, short-term outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes will be the secondary outcomes. In total, 1200 patients will be enrolled over a period of 2 years in 26 dedicated centres in the Netherlands. The study is registered at https://www.trialregister.nl/9734 (NL9734).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Data will be collected through collaborating parties, who already obtained approval by their medical ethical committee. Participants will be included in the trial after having signed informed consent. Results of this study will be disseminated to participating centres, patient organisations, (inter)national society meetings and peer-reviewed journals.

Evaluation of effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgical technology on genitourinary function after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Because the recovery of genitourinary function after total mesorectal excision (TME) is affected by multiple factors, the role of robot-assisted TME technology in postoperative function in previous studies is still controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of robotic technology on the recovery of genitourinary function after TME for rectal cancer by analysing the correlations between influencing factors of genitourinary function and robotic surgery.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and January 2020, patients with rectal cancer (cT1-3NxM0) were registered. Genitourinary function was assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) test, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and urodynamic examination before surgery and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Genitourinary function was compared between the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) groups, and the correlative factors associated with postoperative genitourinary function were analysed using the generalized estimated equation (GEE).

RESULTS

Compared with L-TME, R-TME showed a superior IPSS, voiding volume, residual urine volume and IIEF score during the early postoperative period. According to the GEE analysis, postoperative genitourinary function was positively correlated with laparoscopic anterior resection/abdomen perineal resection (LAR/APR) but negatively correlated with tumour size, tumour distance to anus, TNM, adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, complete TME, circumferential resection margin (CRM), blood loss, diverting stoma, conversion, and anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

Due to the important role of robotic surgical technology on the influential factors of postoperative genitourinary function and the superiority of identifying and preserving autonomic nerves, robotic technology is conducive to the early recovery of postoperative urogenital function while adhering to oncological dissection principles. No significant difference was found between the da Vinci R-TME and MicroHand R-TME groups.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of Knee Arthroplasty versus Joint Distraction for Osteoarthritis (KARDS): protocol for a multicentre, phase III, randomised control trial

INTRODUCTION

Knee replacement (KR) is a clinically proven procedure typically offered to patients with severe knee osteoarthritis (OA) to relieve pain and improve quality of life. However, artificial joints fail over time, requiring revision associated with higher mortality and inferior outcomes. With more young people presenting with knee OA and increasing life expectancy, there is an unmet need to postpone time to first KR. Knee joint distraction (KJD), the practice of using external fixators to open up knee joint space, is proposed as potentially effective to preserve the joint following initial studies in the Netherlands, however, has not been researched within an NHS setting. The KARDS trial will investigate whether KJD is non-inferior to KR in terms of patient-reported postoperative pain 12 months post-surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

KARDS is a phase III, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing KJD with KR in patients with severe knee OA, employing a hybrid-expertise design, with internal pilot phase and process evaluation. 344 participants will be randomised (1:1) to KJD or KR. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain domain score at 12 months post-operation. Secondary outcome measures include patient-reported overall KOOS, Pain Visual Analogue Scale and Oxford Knee Scores, knee function assessments, joint space width, complications and further interventions over 24 months post-operation. Per patient cost difference between KR and KJD and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over 24 months will be estimated within trial, and incremental cost per QALY gained over 20 years by KJD relative to KR predicted using decision analytic modelling.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA). Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, through relevant patient groups and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN14879004; recruitment opened April 2021.

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.

The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

AIM

The learning curve has implications for efficient surgical training. Robotic surgery is perceived to have a shorter learning curve than laparoscopy; however, detailed analysis is lacking. The aim of this work was to analyse studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic colorectal learning curves. Simulation studies comparing novices' learning curves were analysed in order to surmise applicability to colorectal surgery.

METHOD

A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library identified colorectal papers (from 1 January 2000 to 3 March 2021) comparing robotic and laparoscopic learning curves where surgeons lacked laparoscopic colorectal experience. Simulation studies comparing learning curves were also included. The learning curve was defined as the period of ongoing improvement in speed and/or accuracy.

RESULTS

From 576 abstracts reviewed, three operative and 16 simulation studies were included. The robotic learning curve for right colectomy was significantly faster in one study (16 vs. 25 cases) and equal for anterior resection in two studies (44 vs. 41 cases and 55 vs. 55). One study showed fewer complications for robotic patients (14.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.013). Ten simulation studies reported faster times and eight recorded error rates favouring robotic surgery. Seven studies measured the learning curve. Four favoured laparoscopic surgery, but operating times were faster using the robotic platform.

CONCLUSION

Operating times for robotic surgery may be faster than laparoscopy when surgeons are inexperienced with both platforms. This may be related to a superior baseline performance rather than a shorter learning curve. Whether a shorter learning curve on the laparoscopic platform will persist for long enough to enable skills to overtake robotic ability needs further investigation.

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.

Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Versus Transanal Low Anterior Resection: 3-Year Oncologic Results for a Population-Based Cohort in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision are the minimally invasive techniques used most for rectal cancer surgery. Because data regarding oncologic results are lacking, this study aimed to compare these three techniques while taking the learning curve into account.

METHODS

This retrospective population-based study cohort included all patients between 2015 and 2017 who underwent a low anterior resection at 11 dedicated centers that had completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) during a 3-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes were 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Cox-regression.

RESULTS

The 617 patients enrolled in the study included 252 who underwent a laparoscopic resection, 205 who underwent a robot-assisted resection, and 160 who underwent a transanal low anterior resection. The oncologic outcomes were equal between the three techniques. The 3-year OS rate was 90% for laparoscopic resection, 90.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 87.6% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year DFS rate was 77.8% for laparoscopic resection, 75.8% for robot-assisted resection, and 78.8% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year local recurrence rate was in 6.1% for laparoscopic resection, 6.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 5.7% for transanal procedures. Cox-regression did not show a significant difference between the techniques while taking confounders into account.

CONCLUSION

The oncologic results during the 3-year follow-up were good and comparable between laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal technique at experienced centers. These techniques can be performed safely in experienced hands.

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.

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision: Is the future now?

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for the curative radical resection of rectal cancers. Minimally invasive TME has been gaining ground favored by the continuous technological advancements. New procedures, such as transanal TME (TaTME), have been introduced to overcome some technical limitations, especially in low rectal tumors, obese patients, and/or narrow pelvis. The earliest TaTME reports showed promising results when compared with the conventional laparoscopic TME. However, recent publications raised concerns regarding the high rates of anastomotic leaks or local recurrences observed in national series. Robotic TaTME (R-TaTME) has been proposed as a novel technique incorporating the potential benefits of a perineal dissection together with precise control of the distal margins, and also offers all those advantages provided by the robotic technology in terms of improved precision and dexterity. Encouraging short-term results have been reported for R-TaTME, but further studies are needed to assess the real role of the new technique in the long-term oncological or functional outcomes. The present review aims to provide a general overview of R-TaTME by analyzing the body of the available literature, with a special focus on the potential benefits, harms, and future perspectives for this novel approach.

Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study

Background

Conversion from laparoscopic to open access colorectal surgery is associated with a poorer postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to assess conversion rates and outcomes after standard laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and robotic laparoscopic rectal resection (RR).

Methods

A national 5-year cohort study utilizing prospectively recorded data on patients who underwent elective major laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was conversion rate. Secondary end points were postoperative complications within 30 days and histopathological results. Chi-square test, two-sided T test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for univariable analyses. Both univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the relations between different predictors and outcomes, and propensity score matching was performed to address potential treatment assignment bias.

Results

A total of 1284 patients were included, of whom 375 underwent RR and 909 LR. Conversion rate was 8 out of 375 (2.1%) for RR compared with 87 out of 909 (9.6%) for LR (p < 0.001). RR was associated with reduced risk for conversion compared with LR (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10–0.46). There were no other outcome differences between RR and LR. Factors associated with increased risk for conversion were male gender, severe cardiac disease and BMI > 30. Conversion was associated with higher rates of major complications (20 out of 95 (21.2%) vs 135 out of 1189 (11.4%) p = 0.005), reoperations (13 out of 95 (13.7%) vs 93 out of 1189 (7.1%) p = 0.020), and longer hospital stay (median 8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Conversion rate was lower with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy. Conversions were associated with higher rates of postoperative complications.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer has important technical limitations. Robot-assisted and transanal TME (TaTME) may overcome these limitations, potentially leading to lower conversion rates and reduced morbidity. However, comparative data between the three approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for laparoscopic TME, robot-assisted TME and TaTME in expert centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between 2015 and 2017 in expert centres for laparoscopic, robot-assisted or TaTME were included. Outcomes for TME surgery performed by the specialized technique in the expert centres were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was conversion rate. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1078 patients were included. In rectal cancer surgery in general, the overall rate of primary anastomosis was 39.4, 61.9 and 61.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME centres respectively (P < 0.001). For specialized techniques in expert centres excluding abdominoperineal resection (APR), the rate of primary anastomosis was 66.7 per cent in laparoscopic, 89.8 per cent in robot-assisted and 84.3 per cent in TaTME (P < 0.001). Conversion rates were 3.7 , 4.6 and 1.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME respectively (P = 0.134). The number of incomplete specimens, circumferential resection margin involvement rate and morbidity rates did not differ.

CONCLUSION

In the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer more primary anastomoses are created in robotic and TaTME expert centres.

Initial Experience in Rectal Cancer Surgery for the Next Generation of Robotic Surgeons Trained in a Dual Console System

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is used worldwide, with an increasing incidence of robotic surgeons. Therefore, the most appropriate educational system for next-generation robotic surgeons should be urgently established.

METHODS

We analyzed 39 patients who underwent robotic rectal surgery performed by a next-generation surgeon with limited experienced in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. The dual console system was used in the initial 15 cases, and we assessed short-term outcomes and the learning curve on operative time using the cumulative sum method.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into two groups: 15 cases in the early phase, and 24 cases in the late phase. The operative time and surgeon console time were significantly shorter in the late phase than the early phase (P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were more frequently observed in the early phase (P = 0.049); however, the estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were not significantly different. In the initial 15 cases that using the dual console, the average operative time changing to the expert surgeon was 82 minutes in the first 5 cases, 19 minutes on average in the next 5 cases, and no change occurred in the last 5 cases. The learning curve peaked after 14 cases, plateaued from case number 15 to 23, and decreased in a linear fashion until the final case.

CONCLUSION

Education of a next generation surgeon using a dual console system for robotic rectal cancer surgery was performed safely.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Ventral mesh rectopexy is frequently performed as a means of improving the quality of life for sufferers of rectal prolapse. The minimally invasive approach is highly desirable but can be technically difficult to achieve in the narrow confines of the pelvis. The robotic platform is becoming a more common means of overcoming these difficulties, but evidence of an objective benefit over standard laparoscopy is scarce. This study seeks to review and analyse the data comparing outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for papers comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Comparable data was pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Sample sizes were relatively small, and only two of the studies were randomised. Pooled analysis was possible for data on operating time, complication rates, conversion rates and length of stay in hospital. This showed a non-significant trend towards longer operating times and a statistically significant reduction in length of stay after robotic procedures. There was no significant difference in complication and conversion rates.

CONCLUSION

The frequent finding of longer operating time for robotic surgery was not confirmed in this study. Shorter length of stay in hospital was seen, with other post-operative outcomes showing no significant difference. More data is needed with cost-benefit analyses to show whether the robotic platform is justified.

Systematic reviews in surgery-recommendations from the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery

Background

Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach.

Purpose

This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis.

Conclusions

For systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews.

Sphincter-Saving Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision Provides Better Mesorectal Specimen and Good Oncological Local Control Compared with Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in Male Patients with Mid-Low Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision is a technically challenging procedure, and there are limitations in conventional laparoscopy. A surgical robotic system may help to overcome some of the limitations. The aim of our study was to compare long-term oncological outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. One-hundred-three robotic and 84 laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excisions were performed by a single surgeon between January 2011 and January 2020. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications, pathology results, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The patients' characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (180 minutes versus 140 minutes, p=0.033). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the robotic group was complete in 96 (93.20%), near complete in four (3.88%) and incomplete in three (2.91%) patients. In the laparoscopic group, grading was complete in 37 (44.04%), near complete in 40 (47.61%) and incomplete in seven (8.33%) patients (p=0.03). The median length of follow up was 48 (9-102) months in the robotic, and 75.6 (11-113) months in the laparoscopic group. Overall, five-year survival was 87% in the robotic and 85.3% in the laparoscopic groups. Local recurrence rates were 3.8% and 7.14%, respectively, in the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Sphincter-saving robotic total mesorectal excision is a safe and feasible tool, which provides good mesorectal integrity and better local control in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer.

Urogenital function following robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mixed results are reported on clinical and cancer outcomes in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) compared with robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRCS). However, more favourable functional outcomes are reported following RRCS. This study compared urinary and sexual function following RRCS and LRCS in male and female patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of urinary and sexual function after RRCS and LRCS was performed following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines, and registered prospectively with PROSPERO (ID:CRD42020164285). The functional outcome reporting tools most commonly included: the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Mean scores and changes in mean scores from baseline were analysed using RevMan version 5.3.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included reporting on 1286 patients. Some 672 patients underwent LRCS, of whom 380 (56.5 per cent) were men and 116 (17.3 per cent) were women (gender not specified in 176 patients, 26.2 per cent). A total of 614 patients underwent RRCS, of whom 356 (58.0 per cent) were men and 83 (13.5 per cent) were women (gender not specified in 175 patients, 28.5 per cent). Regarding urinary function in men at 6 months after surgery, IPSS scores were significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group (mean difference (MD) -1.36, 95 per cent c.i. -2.31 to -0.40; P = 0.005), a trend that persisted at 12 months (MD -1.08, -1.85 to -0.30; P = 0.007). ΔIIEF scores significantly favoured RRCS at 6 months [MD -3.11 (95%CI -5.77, -0.44) P <0.021] and 12 months [MD -2.76 (95%CI -3.63, -1.88) P <0.001] post-operatively. Mixed urinary and sexual function outcomes were reported for women.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis identified more favourable urinary and erectile function in men who undergo robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Outcomes in women did not identify a consistently more favourable outcome in either group. As robotic rectal cancer surgery may offer more favourable functional outcomes it should be considered and discussed with patients.

Short-term outcome in robotic vs laparoscopic and open rectal tumor surgery within an ERAS protocol: a retrospective cohort study from the Swedish ERAS database

BACKGROUND

Advantages of robotic technique over laparoscopic technique in rectal tumor surgery have yet to be proven. Large multicenter, register-based cohort studies within an optimized perioperative care protocol are lacking. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare short-term outcomes in robotic, laparoscopic and open rectal tumor resections, while also determining compliance to the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)®Society Guidelines.

METHODS

All patients scheduled for rectal tumor resection and consecutively recorded in the Swedish part of the international ERAS® Interactive Audit System between January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020, were included (N = 3125). Primary outcomes were postoperative complications and length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes compliance to the ERAS protocol, conversion to open surgery, symptoms delaying discharge and reoperations. Uni- and multivariate comparisons were used.

RESULTS

Robotic surgery (N = 827) had a similar rate of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grades 1-5), 35.9% compared to open surgery (N = 1429) 40.9% (OR 1.15, 95% CI (0.93, 1.41)) and laparoscopic surgery (N = 869) 31.2% (OR 0.88, 95% CI (0.71, 1.08)). LOS was longer in the open group, median 9 days (IRR 1.35, 95% CI (1.27, 1.44)) and laparoscopic group, 7 days (IRR 1.14, 95% CI (1.07, 1.21)) compared to the robotic group, 6 days. Pre- and intraoperative compliance to the ERAS protocol were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter cohort study, robotic surgery was associated with shorter LOS compared to both laparoscopic and open surgery and had lower conversion rates vs laparoscopic surgery. The rate of complications was similar between groups.

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.