Oncologic outcomes and perioperative clinicopathologic results after robot-assisted tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study on surgical outcomes and long-term survival

Although the safety and short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer patients are well-documented, there is limited research on the long-term survival outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery. This is a retrospective study that includes 502 patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal or sigmoid colon cancer between August 2016 and September 2021. All patients were diagnosed with rectal or sigmoid colon adenocarcinoma. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to minimize selection bias. Perioperative outcomes, complication rates, and pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 5-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were calculated and compared. Before matching, patients in the robotic group had earlier pathological T and N stages and were more likely to have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to the laparoscopic group. After matching, most clinicopathological outcomes were similar between the two groups, but the robotic group had longer operative times and a lower conversion rate to open surgery compared with laparoscopic group. After matching for clinical factors, the 5-year DFS rates were 88.19% for the robotic group and 82.46% for the laparoscopic group (P = 0.122), and the OS rates were 90.5% and 79.5% (P = 0.342), showing no significant differences. In the stratified analysis, patients in the robotic surgery group had significantly higher 5-year DFS rates in the following subgroups: age < 65 years, TNM stage I-II, received neoadjuvant therapy, and primary tumor located in the rectum. The safety and efficacy of robotic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer were validated compared to laparoscopic surgery, with both groups of patients exhibiting comparable long-term prognoses.

Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: single-center, retrospective, propensity score analyses

Although the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer are well known, the long-term oncologic outcomes of RALS compared with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) are not clear. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of RALS and CLS for rectal cancer using propensity score matching. This retrospective study included 185 patients with stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent radical surgery at our institute between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score analyses were performed with 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) as the primary endpoints. After case matching, the 3-year OS and 3-year RFS rates were 86.5% and 77.9% in the CLS group and 98.4% and 88.5% in the RALS group, respectively. Although there were no significant differences in OS (p = 0.195) or RFS (p = 0.518) between the groups, the RALS group had slightly better OS and RFS rates. 3-year cumulative (Cum) local recurrence (LR) and 3-year Cum distant metastasis (DM) were 9.7% and 8.7% in the CLS group and 4.5% and 10.8% in the RALS group, respectively. There were no significant differences in Cum-LR (p = 0.225) or Cum-DM (p = 0.318) between the groups. RALS is a reasonable surgical treatment option for patients with rectal cancer, with long-term outcomes similar to those of CLS in such patients.

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.

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.

No beneficial effect on survival but a decrease in postoperative complications in patients with rectal cancer undergoing robotic surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Robotic surgery has been taken as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Here we aim to compare the oncologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer receiving robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Data from patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between March 2011 and December 2018 were obtained for outcome assessment at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. All patients were separated into two groups: a robot group (patients receiving robotic surgery, n = 314) and a laparoscopy group (patients receiving laparoscopic surgery, n = 220). The primary endpoint was survival outcomes. The secondary endpoints were the general conditions of the operation, postoperative complications and pathological characteristics.

Results

The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at years 1, 3 and 5 were 96.6%, 88.7%, and 87.7% vs. 96.7%, 88.1%, and 78.4%, and 98.6%, 80.2-, and 73.5% vs. 96.2-, 87.2-, and 81.1% in the robot and laparoscopy groups, respectively (P > 0.05). In the multivariable-adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was not an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS (P = 0.925 and 0.451, respectively). With respect to the general conditions of the operation, patients in the robot group had significantly shorter operation times (163.5 ± 40.9 vs. 190.5 ± 51.9 min), shorter times to 1^st gas passing [2(1) vs. 3(1)d] and shorter hospital stay days [7(2) vs. 8(3)d] compared to those in the laparoscopy group (P < 0.01, respectively). After the operation, the incidence of short- and long-term complications in the robot group was significantly lower than that in the laparoscopy group (15.9% vs. 32.3%; P < 0.001), especially for urinary retention (1.9% vs. 7.3%; 0.6% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.05, respectively). With regard to pathological characteristics, TNM stages II and III were more frequently observed in the robot group than in the laparoscopy group (94.3% vs. 83.2%, P < 0.001). No significant difference were observed in lymph nodes retrieved, lymphovascular invasion and circumferential resection margin involvement between the two groups (P > 0.05, respectively).

Conclusions

This monocentre retrospective comparative cohort study revealed short-term advantages of robot-assisted rectal cancer resection but similar survival compared to conventional laparoscopy.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Resection of low rectal adenocarcinoma can be challenging in the narrow pelvis of male patients. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to offer technical advantages for distal rectal tumours, and robotic-assisted transabdominal TME (rTME) was introduced in effort to improve operative precision and ergonomics. However, no study has comprehensively compared these approaches. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare postoperative short-term outcomes in rTME and TaTME.

METHODS

A systematic online search (1974-July 2020) of MEDLINE, Embase, web of science and google scholar was conducted for trials, prospective or retrospective studies involving rTME, or TaTME for rectal cancer. Outcome variables included: hospital stay; operation duration, blood loss; resection margins; proportion of histologically complete resected specimens; lymph nodes; overall complications; anastomotic leak, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles met the inclusion criteria, including 37 studies (3835 patients) assessing rTME resection, 23 studies (1326 patients) involving TaTME and 2 comparing both (165 patients). Operating time was longer in rTME (309.2 min, 95% CI 285.5-332.8) than in TaTME studies (256.2 min, 95% CI 231.5-280.9) (p = 0.002). rTME resected specimens had a larger distal resection margin (2.62 cm, 95% CI 2.35-2.88) than in TaTME studies (2.10 cm, 95% CI 1.83-2.36) (p = 0.007). Other outcome variables did not significantly differ between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

rTME provides similar pathological and short-term outcomes to TaTME and both are reasonable surgical approaches for patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. To definitively answer the question of the optimal TME technique, we suggest a prospective trial comparing both techniques assessing long-term survival as a primary outcome.

Comparison of the short-term operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes between two types of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Da Vinci versus Micro Hand S surgical robot

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the difference of two various robotic technology applied in R- Total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

From May 2017 to December 2018, consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent da Vinci R-TME or Micro Hand S R-TME were enrolled. The comparative study was conducted on Short-term Operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes between two type of R-TME.

RESULTS

47 patients underwent da Vinci R-TME, and 43 patients underwent Micro Hand S R-TME. No difference occured between two groups in TME completeness, CRM, DRM, CRM involvement and DRM involvement, operative time, blood loss, protective ileostomy, conversion rate, number of retrieved lymph nodes, Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or Wexner scores. However, the setup time in the Micro Hand S group was longer.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, both da Vinci R-TME and Micro Hand S R-TME achieve excellent TME quality with acceptable morbidity and postoperative function.

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

AIMS

This study analyzed the oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

METHODS

We enrolled 109 consecutive patients with stage II-III rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted TME after neoadjuvant CCRT at one hospital between July 2013 and June 2018.

RESULTS

All 109 patients underwent preoperative CCRT. Of them, 37 (33.9%) achieved a pathologic complete response, and 29 (26.6%) experienced relapse, with local recurrence in 9 (8.3%) and distant metastasis in 20 (18.3%). R0 resection was performed in 104 (95.7%) patients; however, 7 (6.7%) of them developed local recurrence and 17 (16.3%) developed distant metastasis. Over a median follow-up of 42 months, the 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 73.4% and 87.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted TME after neoadjuvant CCRT is safe and effective for treating patients with stage II-III rectal cancer in one institution with acceptable short-term oncological outcomes. It may be a therapeutic alternative to salvage surgery for T4 tumors invading adjacent organs, such as the bladder, prostate, and uterus.

Robotic rectal resection: oncologic outcomes

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

Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit

BACKGROUND

Safety and feasibility of robotic colorectal surgery has been reported as increasing over the last decade. However safe implementation and adaptation of such a programme with comparable morbidities and acceptable oncological outcomes remains a challenge in a busy tertiary unit. We present our experience of implementation and adaptation of a structured robotic colorectal programme in a high-volume center in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Two colorectal surgeons underwent a structured robotic colorectal training programme consisting of time on simulation console, dry and wet laboratory courses, case observation, and initial mentoring. Data were collected on consecutive robotic colorectal cancer resections over a period of 12 months and compared with colorectal cancer resections data of the same surgeons' record prior to the adaptation of the new technique. Patient demographics including age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), Clavien-Dindo grading, previous abdominal surgeries, and BMI were included. Short-term outcomes including conversion to open, length of stay, return to theatre, 30- and 90-days mortality, blood loss, and post-operative analgesia were recorded. Tumour site, TNM staging, diverting stoma, neo-adjuvant therapy, total mesorectal excision (TME) grading and positive resection margins (R1) were compared. p values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ninety colorectal cancer resections were performed with curative intent from June 2018 to June 2020. Thirty robotic colorectal cancer resections (RCcR) were performed after adaption of programme and were compared with 60 non-robotic colorectal cancer resections (N-RCcR) prior to implementation of technique. There was no conversion in the RCcR group; however, in N-RCcR group, five had open resection from start and the rest had laparoscopic surgery. In laparoscopic group, there were six (10.9%) conversions to open (two adhesions, three multi-visceral involvements, one intra-operative bleed). Male-to-female ratio was 20:09 in RCcR group and 33:20 in N-RCcR groups. No significant differences in gender (p = 0.5), median age (p = 0.47), BMI (p = 0.64) and ASA scores (p = 0.72) were present in either groups. Patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable aside from an increased proportion of rectal and sigmoid cancers in RCcR group. Mean operating time, and returns to theaters were comparable in both groups. Complications were fewer in RCcR group as compared to N-RCcR (16.6% vs 25%). RCcR group patients have reduced length of stay (5 days vs 7 days) but this is not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss and conversion to open surgery was significantly lesser in the robotic group (p < 0.01). The oncological outcomes from surgery including TNM, resection margin status, lymph node yield and circumferential resection margin (for rectal cancers) were all comparable. There was no 30-day mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

Implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery is safe and effective in a busy tertiary center through a structured training programme with comparable short-term survival and oncological outcomes during learning curve.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives

Despite the technical limitations of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has short-term advantages over open surgery, but the pathological outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials are still in controversy. Minimally invasive robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) has recently been gaining popularity as robotic surgical systems potentially provide greater benefits than LTME. Compared to LTME, RTME is associated with lower conversion rates and similar or better genitourinary functions, but its long-term oncological outcomes have not been established. Although the operating time of RTME is longer than that of LTME, RTME has a shorter learning curve, is more convenient for surgeons, and is better for sphincter-preserving operations than LTME. The robotic surgical system is a good technical tool for minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer, especially in male patients with narrow deep pelvises. Robotic systems and robotic surgical techniques are still improving, and the contribution of RTME to the treatment of rectal cancer will continue to increase in the future.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Short-Term Oncological Outcomes of Initial 178 Cases

Emerging techniques in minimally invasive rectal resection include robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME). The Da Vinci Surgical System offers precise dissection in narrow and deep confined spaces and is gaining increasing acceptance during recent times. The aim of this study is to analyse our initial experience of R-TME with Da Vinci Xi platform in terms of perioperative and oncological outcomes in the context of data from recently published randomised ROLARR trial amongst minimally invasive novice surgeons. Patients who underwent R-TME or tumour specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between May 2016 and November 2019 were identified from a prospectively maintained single institution colorectal database. Demographic, clinical-pathological and short-term oncological outcomes were analysed. Of the 178 patients, 117 (65.7%) and 31 (17.4%) patients had lower and mid third rectal cancer. Most of the tumours were locally advanced, cT3–T4: 138 (77.5%). One hundred/178 (56.2%) underwent sphincter preserving TME. Eighty-seven (48.8%) were grade II adenocarcinoma. Nonmucinous adenocarcinoma was the predominant histology, 138 (78.4%). One hundred one cases (56.7%) were pT3. The mean number of lymph node yield was 13 ± 5. Distal resection margin and circumferential resection margin were positive in 2 (1.12%), 12 cases (6.74%) respectively. Eleven cases (6.7%) had to be converted to open TME. Mean blood loss and duration of surgery was 170 ± 60 ml and 286 ± 45 min respectively. Five percent cases had an anastomotic leak. Grade IIIa–IIIb Clavien Dindo (CD) morbidity score was reported to be in 12 (6.75%) and 10 (5.61%) cases. Median length of hospitalisation was 7 days (range 4–14 days). Perioperative and pathologic outcomes following robotic rectal resection is associated with good short-term oncological outcomes and is safe, effective, and reproducible by a minimally invasive novice surgeon.

The Use of Enhanced Technologies in Robotic Surgery and Its Impact on Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

The main advantage of the robotic approach is the surgical precision that the technology offers. It is particularly useful in rectal cancer as this is a technically challenging procedure. The technological advantage of the robot leads to better postoperative outcomes. Apart from the 3D vision and endowrist instrumentation in comparison to laparoscopy, the options of using fluorescence imaging, endowrist stapler, and table motion have revolutionised the way of performing an anterior resection. Thus, the true benefit of these advances will be the quality of the surgery, which leads to better postoperative outcomes. This article focuses on the current status of applications of new modalities and technology development in robotic rectal surgery. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and cochrane database. The studies included were considered based on the following (1) articles written in English, (2) full text is available, (3) whether the topic is related to the use of novel technologies during robotic rectal surgery, and (4) sample: adult patients and malignant rectal disease. The primary end point was to analyse the current use of technological advances in robotic rectal surgery. Only a few studies are currently available on the use of these different technologies in robotic colorectal surgery. Many of these reports describe promising results, although with short-term outcomes. The use of technologies in robotic colorectal surgery is safe and feasible and can be used together to improve short-term outcomes. Intraoperative fluorescence angiography has demonstrated to reduce the rate of anastomotic leak, whereas the robotic stapler and the table motion simplify anatomic resection.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness

Robotic surgery is considered as one of the advanced treatment modality of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic rectal surgery has been performed for three decades and its application is gradually expanding along with technology development. It has several technical advantages which include magnified three-dimensional vision, better ergonomics, multiple articulated robotic instruments, and the opportunity to perform remote surgery. The technical benefits of robotic system can help to manipulate more meticulously during technical challenging procedures including total mesorectal excision in narrow pelvis, lateral pelvic node dissection, and intersphincteric resection. It is also reported that robotic rectal surgery have been shown more favorable postoperative functional outcomes. Despite its technical benefits, a majority of studies have been reported that there is rarely clinical or oncologic superiority of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. In addition, robotic rectal surgery showed significantly higher costs than the standard method. Hence, the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery is still questionable. In order for robotic rectal surgery to further develop in the field of minimally invasive surgery, there should be an obvious cost-effective advantages over laparoscopic surgery, and it is crucial that large-scale prospective randomized trials are required. Positive competition of industries in correlation with technological development may gradually reduce the price of the robotic system, and it will be helpful to increase the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence available on the safety as well as effectiveness of robotic resection as compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer was collected. Eligible trials that analyzed probabilistic hazard ratios (HR) for endpoints of interest (including perioperative morbidity) and postoperative complications were included in our review.

RESULTS

A total of six studies were included based on the present inclusion criteria. The pooled data showed that R-TME appeared to have association with remarkable reduction in the postoperative morbidity rate as compared to L-TME. Moreover, R-TME was also linked to lower conversion, decreased lymph node number, and longer operation time compared with L-TME. However, there was no difference in hospital stay, positive range of circumferential resection and blood loss between the two study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic rectal cancer surgery provides favorable outcomes and is considered as a safe surgical technique in terms of postoperative oncological safety. Like laparoscopic TME surgery, robotic surgery may be a valid alternative and complementary approach with beneficial effects on minimally-invasive surgery.

Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Analysis of a Prospective Database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncological outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) at an NCI designated cancer center.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The effectiveness of laparoscopic TME could not be established, but the robotic-assisted approach may hold some promise, with improved visualization and ergonomics for pelvic dissection. Oncological outcome data is presently lacking.

METHODS

Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between April 2009 and April 2016 via a robotic approach were identified from a prospective single-institution database. The circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin, and TME completeness rates were determined. Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-free survival and overall survival was performed for all patients treated with curative intent.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients underwent robotic proctectomy during the study period. Robotic surgery was performed initially by 1 surgeon with 3 additional surgeons progressively transitioning from open to robotic during the study period with annual increase in the total number of cases performed robotically. Seven patients had involved circumferential resection margins (2.5%), and there were no positive distal or proximal resection margins. One hundred eighty-six patients had TME quality assessed, and only 1 patient (0.5%) had an incomplete TME. Eighty-three patients were followed up for a minimum of 3 years, with a local recurrence rate of 2.4%, and a distant recurrence rate of 16.9%. Five-year disease-free survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 82%, and 5-year overall survival was 87%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer can be performed with good short and medium term oncological outcomes in selected patients.

Different clinical features according to the anastomotic leakage subtypes after rectal cancer surgeries: contained vs. free leakages

Background

Anastomotic leakage can be classified by free and contained leakage according to clinical manifestations. The risk factors and their comparison between these leakage subtypes are uncertain. This study aims to evaluate anastomotic leakage patterns and to compare clinical features between free and contained leakages after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Materials and methods

Between January 2005 and December 2012, a total of 2035 consecutive patients who underwent low anterior resection for primary rectal cancer were evaluated retrospectively at two-tertiary referral centers. The primary end points of this study were to assess detailed clinical features among leakage subtypes. The secondary end point was to compare risk factors between free and contained leakages.

Results

Patients were subdivided into a no leakage group (n = 1890), free leakage group (n = 73), and contained leakage group (n = 72). Free leakage occurred more frequently in laparoscopic and robotic surgeries than open surgery (p = 0.015). On the other hand, contained leakage was developed in a higher rate of patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (p<0.001). The mean development time was 4.6 days in the free leakage group, and 23.6 days in the contained leakage group. Patients with free leakage had a lower rate of a defunctioning stoma than contained leakage (5.5% vs. 29.2%, p<0.001). Risk factors for free leakage were smoking, tumor location, and laparoscopic surgery. However, tumor location and preoperative chemoradiotherapy increased the risk for contained leakage.

Conclusions

Contained leakage in rectal cancer surgery showed different clinical manifestations and risk factors compared to free leakage. It is necessary to pay more attention to patients with particular risk factors for anastomotic leakage subtypes.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan

PURPOSE

Scientific evidence supporting robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remains inconclusive because most previous reports were retrospective case series or case-control studies, with few reports focusing on long-term oncological outcomes with a large volume of patients. The aim of this study was to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of a large number of consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RALS in a single high-volume center.

METHODS

The records of 551 consecutive patients who underwent RALS for rectal adenocarcinoma between December 2011 and March 2017 were examined to reveal the short-term outcomes. The oncological outcomes of the 204 patients who underwent surgery between December 2011 and March 2014 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Most patients had tumors located in the lower or mid-rectum (86.0%). Only 7.6% of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed for 191 patients (34.7%). The median operative time was 257 min, median blood loss was 10 mL, and no transfusions were needed. No conversion to open surgery was necessary. Eighteen patients (3.3%) had Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Six patients (1.1%) had positive resection margins. The mean follow-up duration of the 204 patients was 43.6 ± 9.8 (months). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 100%/100%/100%/not reached, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 93.6%/75.0%/77.6%/ not reached, respectively. The rate of local recurrence was 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that RALS is technically feasible for rectal cancer and has good short- and long-term outcomes.

Systematic review analysis of robotic and transanal approaches in TME surgery- A systematic review of the current literature in regard to challenges in rectal cancer surgery

Several patients' and pathological characteristics in rectal surgery can significantly complicate surgical loco regional tumor clearance. The main factors are obesity, short tumor distance from anal verge, bulky tumors, and narrow pelvis, which have been shown to be associated to poor surgical results in open and laparoscopic approaches. Minimally invasive surgery has the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity with equivalent short- and long-term oncological outcomes compared to conventional open approach. Achilles' heel of laparoscopic approaches is conversion to open surgery. High risk for conversion is evident for patients with bulky and low tumors as well as male gender and narrow pelvis. Hence, patient's characteristics represent challenges in rectal cancer surgery especially in minimally invasive approaches. The available surgical techniques increased remarkably with recently developed and implemented improvements of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. The controversial discussions about sense and purpose of these novel approaches are still ongoing in the literature. Herein, we evaluate, if latest technical advances like transanal approach or robotic assisted surgery have the potential to overcome known challenges and pitfalls in rectal cancer surgery in demanding surgical cases and highlight the role of current minimally invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

Robotic surgery is safe and feasible offering many potential advantages to the colorectal surgeon.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: the future?

Robotic technology currently offers some technical advantages in pelvic dissection compared with competing minimally invasive techniques, and adoption for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer is rapidly increasing worldwide. While there are some early data demonstrating modest improvement in patient outcomes, benefits in terms of long-term oncological outcomes, as well as potential improvements in surgeon-centered outcomes such as fatigue and repetitive stress injury are actively being investigated. Rapid innovation, with the impending release of several new robotic platforms, is likely to further expand the application of these technologies, improve on current limitations, and reduce capital and consumable costs. It is imperative that, as the technology develops and adoption increases further, clinician and research led programs drive safe implementation with a patient-first approach.

Phase II Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Transanal Endoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision has become the standard treatment for rectal cancer, and several investigators have shown that a transanal approach is a feasible option.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This study was a prospective, single-arm phase II trial. It was registered on clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT02406118.

SETTINGS

Inpatients at a hospital specializing in oncology were selected.

PATIENTS

This prospective study enrolled 49 patients with rectal cancer located 3 to 12 cm from the anal verge who were scheduled to undergo radical surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopy-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was total mesorectal excision quality and circumferential resection margin. Secondary end points included the number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, and 30-day postoperative complications.

RESULTS

From March 2015 to April 2016, 32 men and 17 women with rectal cancer were enrolled. The mean age was 61.2 years, and mean BMI was 23.3 kg/m. The mean operating time was 158 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 89.3 mL. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions to open surgery. Successful treatment based on total mesorectal excision quality and circumferential resection margin was achieved in 45 patients (91.8%). Fifteen patients (30.6%) had 30-day postoperative complications, including 7 (14.3%) with anastomotic dehiscence, 5 (10.2%) with urinary retention, 2 (4.1%) with abdominal wound complications, and 1 (2.0%) with ileus. There was no postoperative mortality.

LIMITATIONS

This was a noncomparative single-arm trial conducted at a single institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision showed acceptable results based on perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Further investigations are necessary to show the benefits and long-term outcomes of this procedure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A563.

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

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

Surgical outcomes of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System: a multi-center pilot Phase II study

Introduction

We conducted a multi-center pilot Phase II study to examine the safety of robotic rectal cancer surgery performed using the da Vinci Surgical System during the introduction period of robotic rectal surgery at two institutes based on surgical outcomes.

Methods

This study was conducted with a prospective, multi-center, single-arm, open-label design to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for rectal cancer (da Vinci Surgical System). The primary endpoint was the rate of adverse events during and after robotic surgery. The secondary endpoint was the completion rate of robotic surgery.

Results

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 50 patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 10 (20%) had rectosigmoid cancer, 17 (34%) had upper rectal cancer, and 23 (46%) had lower rectal cancer; six underwent high anterior resection, 32 underwent low anterior resection, 11 underwent intersphincteric resection, and one underwent abdominoperineal resection. Pathological stages were Stage 0 in 1 patient, Stage I in 28 patients, Stage II in 7 patients and Stage III in 14 patients. Pathologically complete resection was achieved in all patients. There was no intraoperative organ damage or postoperative mortality. Eight (16%) patients developed complications of all grades, of which 2 (4%) were Grade 3 or higher, including anastomotic leakage (2%) and conversion to open surgery (2%).

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic rectal cancer surgery, as reflected by low morbidity and low conversion rates, during the introduction period.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision with the single-docking technique for patients with rectal cancer

Background

The robotic system has advantages of high-definition three-dimensional vision and articular instruments with high dexterity, allowing more precise dissection in the deep and narrow pelvic cavity.

Methods

We enrolled 95 patients with stage I-III rectal cancer (adenocarcinoma) who underwent totally robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) with single-docking technique at a single institution between September 2013 and December 2016.

Results

Of the 95 patients, 48 (50.5%) and 30 (31.6%) patients had lower and middle rectal cancers, respectively. Of the 75 (78.9%) patients undergoing preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), 27 (28.4%) exhibited pathologic complete response (pCR). Only four (4.2%) patients underwent abdominoperineal resection and the sphincter preservation rate was 95.8%. R0 resection was performed in 92 (96.8%) patients. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) and distal resection margin (DRM) were positive in 2 (2.1%) and 1 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The anastomotic leakage rate was 5.4% (5/95 patients). The overall complication rate was 17.9% (17/95 patients); most of them were mild. No 30-day hospital mortality occurred, and no patients required conversion to open surgery. In 92 patients undergoing R0 resection, 2-year overall survival was 94% and 2-year disease-free survival was 83%.

Conclusions

The results demonstrated that totally robotic-assisted TME with the single-docking technique is safe and feasible for patients with rectal cancer, with or without preoperative CCRT. Moreover, favorable pCR rate, R0 resection rate, CRM, DRM, sphincter preservation rate, and short-term oncological outcomes can be achieved by combining this approach with appropriate preoperative CCRT.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Although laparoscopic resection for colon cancer has been proven safe and feasible when compared with open resection, currently no clear evidence is available regarding minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. This type of surgery may benefit patients by allowing fast recovery of normal dietary intake and bowel function, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospitalization. Therefore, minimally invasive surgeries such as laparoscopic or robot surgery have become the predominant treatment option for colon cancer. Specifically, the proportion of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in Korea increased from 42.6 to 64.7% until 2013. However, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is more difficult and technically demanding. In addition, the procedure requires a prolonged learning curve to achieve equivalent outcomes relative to open surgery. It is very challenging to approach the deep and narrow pelvis using laparoscopic instruments. However, robotic surgery provides better vision with a high definition three-dimensional view, exceptional ergonomics, Endowrist technology, enhanced dexterity of movement, and a lack of physiologic tremor, facilitated by the use of an assistant in the narrow and deep pelvis. Recently, an increasing number of reports have compared the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer. Such reports have prompted a discussion of the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery, including robotic surgery, for rectal cancer. The aim of this review is to summarize current data regarding the clinical outcomes, including oncologic outcomes, of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.

Robotic Resection is a Good Prognostic Factor in Rectal Cancer Compared with Laparoscopic Resection: Long-term Survival Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching

BACKGROUND

Robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has rapidly increased and has shown short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. However, data for long-term oncologic outcomes are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 732 patients who underwent totally robotic (n = 272) and laparoscopic (n = 460) total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer were included in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We compared clinicopathologic outcomes of patients. In addition, short- and long-term outcomes and prognostic factors for survival were evaluated in the matched robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision groups (224 matched pairs by propensity score).

RESULTS

Before case matching, patients in the robotic group were younger, more likely to have undergone preoperative chemoradiation, and had a lower tumor location than those in the laparoscopic group. After case matching most clinicopathologic outcomes were similar between the groups, but operative time was longer and postoperative ileus was more frequent in the robotic group. In the matched patients excluding stage IV, the overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival were better in the robotic group, but did not reach statistical significance. The 5-year survival rates for robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision were 90.5% and 78.0% for overall survival, 90.5% and 79.5% for cancer-specific survival, and 72.6% and 68.0% for disease-free survival. In multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival and cancer-specific survival (p = 0.0040, HR = 0.333; p = 0.0161, HR = 0.367).

LIMITATIONS

This study has the potential for selection bias and limited generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer showed long-term survival comparable to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in this study. Robotic surgery was a good prognostic factor for overall survival and cancer-specific survival, suggesting potential oncologic benefits.

Robotic Surgery for Colon and Rectal Cancer

Robotic surgery, used generally for colorectal cancer, has the advantages of a three-dimensional surgical view, steadiness, and seven degrees of robotic arms. However, there are disadvantages, such as a decreased sense of touch, extra time needed to dock the robotic cart, and high cost. Robotic surgery is performed using various techniques, with or without laparoscopic surgery. Because the results of this approach are reported to be similar to or less favorable than those of laparoscopic surgery, the learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery remains controversial. However, according to short- and long-term oncologic outcomes, robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe compared with conventional surgery. Advanced technologies in robotic surgery have resulted in favorable intraoperative and perioperative clinical outcomes as well as functional outcomes. As the technical advances in robotic surgery improve surgical performance as well as outcomes, it increasingly is being regarded as a treatment option for colorectal surgery. However, a multicenter, randomized clinical trial is needed to validate this approach.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery Improves the Quality of Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Compared to Laparoscopy: Results of a Case-Controlled Analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of a robotic surgical system is claimed to allow precise traction and counter-traction, especially in a narrow pelvis. Whether this translates to improvement of the quality of the resected specimen is not yet clear. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of the TME and the short-term oncological outcome between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer resections.

METHODS

20 consecutive robotic TME performed in a single institution for rectal cancer (Rob group) were matched 1:2 to 40 laparoscopic resections (Lap group) for gender, body mass index (BMI), and distance from anal verge on rigid proctoscopy. The quality of TME was assessed by 2 blinded and independent pathologists and reported according to international standardized guidelines.

RESULTS

Both samples were well matched for gender, BMI (median 25.9 vs. 24.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.24), and level of the tumor (4.1 vs. 4.8 cm, p = 0.20). The quality of the TME was better in the Robotic group (complete TME: 95 vs. 55 %; p = 0.0003, nearly complete TME 5 vs. 37 %; p = 0.04, incomplete TME 0 vs. 8 %, p = 0.09). A trend for lower positive circumferential margin was observed in the Robotic group (10 vs. 25 %, p = 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that robotic-assisted surgery improves the quality of TME for rectal cancer. Whether this translates to better oncological outcome needs to be further investigated.

Laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy: a national surgical quality improvement project analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic colorectal surgery is being increasingly adopted. Our objective was to compare early postoperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic colectomy in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Colectomy Targeted Dataset from 2012 to 2014 was used for this study. Adult patients undergoing elective colectomy with an anastomosis were included. Patients were stratified based on location of colorectal resection (low anterior resection (LAR), left-sided resection, or right-sided resection). Bivariate data analysis was performed, and logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

There were a total of 25,998 laparoscopic colectomies (30 % LAR's, 45 % left-sided, and 25 % right-sided) and 1484 robotic colectomies (54 % LAR's, 28 % left-sided, and 18 % right-sided). The risk-adjusted overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality were similar between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in all anastomotic groups. Patients undergoing robotic LAR had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76) and postoperative sepsis rate (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.29-0.85) but a higher rate of diverting ostomies (OR 1.45, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76). Robotic right-sided colectomies had significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.34-0.96). Robotic colectomy in all groups was associated with a longer operative time (by 40 min) and a decreased length of stay (by 0.5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationally representative sample comparing laparoscopic and robotic colectomies, the overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality between groups are similar while length of stay was shorter by 0.5 days in the robotic colectomy group. Robotic LAR was associated with lower conversion rates and lower septic complications. However, robotic LAR is also associated with a significantly higher rate of diverting ostomy. The reason for this relationship is unclear. Surgeon factors, patient factors, and technical factors should be considered in future studies.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative morbidity

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery addresses many of the technical and ergonomic limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but the literature regarding clinical outcomes in colorectal surgery is limited. We sought to compare robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify all patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic colorectal surgery in 2013. We performed a logistic regression analysis to compare intraoperative variables and 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 8392 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery and 472 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery. The robotic cohort had a lower incidence of unplanned intraoperative conversion (9.5% v. 13.7%, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences between robotic and laparoscopic surgery with respect to other intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, such as operative duration, length of stay, postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, venous thromboembolism, wound infection, cardiac complications and pulmonary complications. On multivariable analysis, robotic surgery was protective for unplanned conversion, while male sex, malignancy, Crohn disease and diverticular disease were all associated with open conversion.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery has comparable 30-day perioperative morbidity to laparoscopic surgery and may decrease the rate of intraoperative conversion in select patients.

Robot-Assisted Abdominoperineal Resection: Clinical, Pathologic, and Oncologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The extralevator approach to abdominoperineal resection is associated with a decreased incidence of rectal perforation and circumferential resection margin positivity translating to lower recurrence rates. The abdominoperineal resection, as such, is an operation associated with poorer outcomes in comparison with low anterior resections, and any improvements in short-term outcomes are likely to be related to surgical technique. Robot assistance in extralevator abdominoperineal resection has shown improvement in these pathologic outcomes. Because these are surrogate markers for local recurrence and disease-free survival, long-term survival data are needed to assess the efficacy of this robot-assisted technique, exclusively in a dedicated abdominoperineal resection cohort.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes of the robot-assisted extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This study was a review of a prospective database of patients over a 5-year period.

SETTING

Procedures were performed in the colorectal division of a tertiary hospital from April 2007 to July 2012.

PATIENTS

Patients with rectal cancer were operated on robotically. Indications for abdominoperineal resection were low rectal cancers invading the sphincter complex or location in the anal canal precluding anastomosis.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients received a robot-assisted extralevator abdominoperineal resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative and perioperative measures, pathologic outcomes, and disease-free survival and overall survival were documented and assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (15 men) with a mean age of 65.5 years and mean BMI of 28.6 kg/m underwent robotic abdominoperineal resection. Circumferential resection margin was positive in 13.6%. There was 1 tumor/rectal perforation. At a mean follow-up of 33.9 months, overall survival was 81.8% with a disease-free survival of 72.7%. Local recurrence was 4.5%.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-institution study with no comparative open or laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection is safe, feasible, and oncologically sound with short-term and long-term outcomes comparable to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Four-arm single docking full robotic surgery for low rectal cancer: technique standardization

The authors present the four-arm single docking full robotic surgery to treat low rectal cancer. The eight main operative steps are: 1- patient positioning; 2- trocars set-up and robot docking; 3- sigmoid colon, left colon and splenic flexure mobilization (lateral-to-medial approach); 4-Inferior mesenteric artery and vein ligation (medial-to-lateral approach); 5- total mesorectum excision and preservation of hypogastric and pelvic autonomic nerves (sacral dissection, lateral dissection, pelvic dissection); 6- division of the rectum using an endo roticulator stapler for the laparoscopic performance of a double-stapled coloanal anastomosis (type I tumor); 7- intersphincteric resection, extraction of the specimen through the anus and lateral-to-end hand sewn coloanal anastomosis (type II tumor); 8- cylindric abdominoperineal resection, with transabdominal section of the levator muscles (type IV tumor). The techniques employed were safe and have presented low rates of complication and no mortality.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduction in operative trauma along with an improvement in endoscopic access has undoubtedly occupied surgical minds for at least the past 3 decades. It is not at all surprising that minimally invasive colon surgery has come a long way since the first laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1981. It is common knowledge that the recent developments in video and robotic technologies have significantly furthered advancements in laparoscopic and minimally invasive surgery. This has led to the overall acceptance of the treatment of benign colorectal pathology via the endoscopic route. Malignant disease, however, is still primarily treated by conventional approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This review article is based on a literature search pertaining to advances in minimally invasive colorectal surgery for the treatment of malignant pathology, as well as on personal experience in the field over the same period of time. Our search was limited to level I and II clinical papers only, according to the evidence-based medicine guidelines. We attempted to present our unbiased view on the subject relying only on the evidence available.

CONCLUSION

Focusing on advances in colorectal minimally invasive surgery, it has to be stated that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding the surgical management of malignant diseases with this approach. These questions do not only relate to the area of boundaries set for the use of minimally invasive techniques in this field but also to the exact modality best suited to the treatment of every particular case whilst maintaining state-of-the-art oncological principles.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

AIM: To compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS: The clinical data for 120 rectal cancer patients treated from December 2014 to January 2016 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were analyzed retrospectively, of whom 63 underwent robotic surgery (robotic group) and 57 underwent laparoscopic surgery (laparoscopic group). Operative details, postoperative recovery and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: Operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (161.1 min ± 41.4 min vs 135.5 min ± 39.1 min, P = 0.001). Intra-oprerative blood loss in the robotic group was significantly less than that in the laparoscopic group (104.8 mL ± 70.8 mL vs 140.3 mL ± 81.4 mL, P = 0.013). The anal sphincter preservation rate was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group [65.0% (13/20) vs 25.0% (4/16), P = 0.017]. The time to first postoperative exhaust, time to resume liquid food and time to remove the urinary catheter were significantly shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.05). The cost was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (27.0 thousand yuan ± 11.0 thousand yuan vs 43.0 thousand yuan ± 13.0 thousand yuan, P = 0.000). No conversion occurred in the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of length of specimens, length of distal margin, number of resected lymph nodes, postoperative hospital stay and incidence of postoperative complications (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The robotic rectal cancer surgery can achieve a similar radical therapeutic effect to laparoscopic surgery. Moreover, it has the advantages of less trauma, less intraoperative bleeding, faster recovery, and higher anus preserving rate.

Does robotics improve minimally invasive rectal surgery? Functional and oncological implications

OBJECTIVE

Robot-assisted surgery has been reported to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer in a minimally invasive manner. Nevertheless, substantial data concerning functional outcomes and long-term oncological adequacy is still lacking. We aimed to assess the current role of robotics in rectal surgery focusing on patients' functional and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted to search articles published in English up to 11 September 2015 concerning functional and/or oncological outcomes of patients who received robot-assisted rectal surgery. All relevant papers were evaluated on functional implications such as postoperative sexual and urinary dysfunction and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Robotics showed a general trend towards lower rates of sexual and urinary postoperative dysfunction and earlier recovery compared with laparoscopy. The rates of 3-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival of robotic-assisted rectal surgery compared favourably with those of laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study fails to provide solid evidence to draw definitive conclusions on whether robotic systems could be useful in ameliorating the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. However, the available data suggest potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy with reference to functional outcomes.

Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current status and perspectives

The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition three-dimensional vision, it translates the surgeon’s hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors’ centre.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery

There are an estimated 39,000 new cases of rectal cancer in the United States per year which makes it the third most prevalent cancer when paired with colon cancer. Given its complexity, there are now multiple modalities available for its successful treatment. This includes innovative chemotherapy, radiation, transanal resection techniques, and minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer represents the current pinnacle of minimally invasive technology for this disease process.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery (RS) overcomes the limitations of previous conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Although meta-analyses have been published recently, our study evaluated the latest comparative surgical, urologic, and sexual results for rectal cancer and compares RS with CLS in patients with rectal cancer only.

METHODS

We searched three foreign databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Cochrane Library) and five Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi) during July 2013. The Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized were utilized to evaluate quality of study. Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio (RR), and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD). All meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager, V. 5.3.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies involving 2,224 patients were included. RS was associated with a lower rate of intraoperative conversion than that of CLS (RR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.54). Time to first flatus was short (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01). Operating time was longer for RS than that for CLS (MD, 49.97; 95% CI, 20.43-79.52, I(2) = 97%). International Prostate Symptom Score scores at 3 months better RS than CLS (MD, -2.90; 95% CI, -5.31 to -0.48, I(2) = 0%). International Index of Erectile Function scores showed better improvement at 3 months (MD, -2.82; 95% CI, -4.78 to -0.87, I(2) = 37%) and 6 months (MD, -2.15; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.22, I(2) = 0%).

CONCLUSION

RS appears to be an effective alternative to CLS with a lower conversion rate to open surgery, a shorter time to first flatus and better recovery in voiding and sexual function. RS could enhance postoperative recovery in patients with rectal cancer.

SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci(®) Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is a computer-assisted (robotic) surgical system designed to enable and enhance minimally invasive surgery. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared computer-assisted surgical systems for use by trained physicians in an operating room environment for laparoscopic surgical procedures in general, cardiac, colorectal, gynecologic, head and neck, thoracic and urologic surgical procedures. There are substantial numbers of peer-reviewed papers regarding the da Vinci(®) Surgical System, and a thoughtful assessment of evidence framed by clinical opinion is warranted.

METHODS

The SAGES da Vinci(®) TAVAC sub-committee performed a literature review of the da Vinci(®) Surgical System regarding gastrointestinal surgery. Conclusions by the sub-committee were vetted by the SAGES TAVAC Committee and SAGES Executive Board. Following revisions, the document was evaluated by the TAVAC Committee and Executive Board again for final approval.

RESULTS

Several conclusions were drawn based on expert opinion organized by safety, efficacy, and cost for robotic foregut, bariatric, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, colorectal surgery, and single-incision cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal surgery with the da Vinci(®) Surgical System is safe and comparable, but not superior to standard laparoscopic approaches. Although clinically acceptable, its use may be costly for select gastrointestinal procedures. Current data are limited to the da Vinci(®) Surgical System; further analyses are needed.

The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques

The conventional laparoscopic approach to rectal surgery has several limitations, and therefore many colorectal surgeons have great expectations for the robotic surgical system as an alternative modality in overcoming challenges of laparoscopic surgery and thus enhancing oncologic and functional outcomes. This review explores the possibility of robotic surgery as an alternative approach in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The da Vinci® Surgical System was developed specifically to compensate for the technical limitations of laparoscopic instruments in rectal surgery. The robotic rectal surgery is associated with comparable or better oncologic and pathologic outcomes, as well as low morbidity and mortality. The robotic surgery is generally easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery, improving the probability of autonomic nerve preservation and genitourinary function recovery. Furthermore, in very complex procedures such as intersphincteric dissections and transabdominal transections of the levator muscle, the robotic approach is associated with increased performance and safety compared to laparoscopic surgery. The robotic surgery for rectal cancer is an advanced technique that may resolve the issues associated with laparoscopic surgery. However, high cost of robotic surgery must be addressed before it can become the new standard treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer focusing on short-term outcomes: a propensity score-matching analysis

Although the total cost of robotic surgery (RS) is known to be higher than that of laparoscopic surgery (LS), the cost-effectiveness of RS has not yet been verified. The aim of the study is to clarify the cost-effectiveness of RS compared with LS for rectal cancer.From January 2007 through December 2011, 311 and 560 patients underwent totally RS and conventional LS for rectal cancer, respectively. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed with a ratio of 1:1 to reduce the possibility of selection bias. Costs and perioperative short-term outcomes in both the groups were compared. Additional costs due to readmission were also analyzed.The characteristics of the patients were not different between the 2 groups. Most perioperative outcomes were not different between the groups except for the operation time. Complications within 30 days of surgery were not significantly different. Total hospital charges and patients' bill were higher in RS than in LS. The total hospital charges for patients who recovered with or without complications were higher in RS than in LS, although their short-term outcomes were similar. In patients with complications, the postoperative course after RS appeared to be milder than that of LS. Total hospital charges for patients who were readmitted due to complications were similar between the groups.RS showed similar short-term outcomes with higher costs than LS. Therefore, cost-effectiveness focusing on short-term perioperative outcomes of RS was not demonstrated.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic surgery at a single institution.

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is regarded as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer were acceptable in previous reports. However, evidence of long-term feasibility and oncologic safety is required.

METHODS

Between April 2006 and August 2011, 217 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer with stage I-III disease were enrolled prospectively (robot, n = 133; laparoscopy, n = 84). Median follow-up period was 58 months (range, 4-80 months). Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes, morbidities, 5-year survival rates, prognostic factors, and cost were evaluated.

RESULTS

Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes demonstrated no significant differences except for the conversion rate and length of hospital stay. The 5-year overall survival rate was 92.8% in robotic, and 93.5% in laparoscopic surgical procedures (P = 0.829). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 81.9% and 78.7%, respectively (P = 0.547). Local recurrence was similar: 2.3% and 1.2% (P = 0.649). According to the univariate analysis, this type of surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for long-term survival. The patient's mean payment for robotic surgery was approximately 2.34 times higher than laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were found in the 5-year overall, disease-free survival and local recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures. We concluded that robotic surgery for rectal cancer failed to offer any oncologic or clinical benefits as compared with laparoscopy despite an increased cost.