A review on robotic surgery in rectal cancer

Robotic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (RTaTME): State of the Art

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard technique for the surgical management of rectal cancer. The transanal approach to the mesorectum was introduced to overcome the technical difficulties related to the distal rectal dissection. Since its inception, interest in transanal mesorectal excision has grown exponentially and it appears that the benefits are maximal in patients with mid-low rectal cancer where anatomical and pathological features represent the greatest challenges. Current evidence demonstrates that this approach is safe and feasible, with oncological and functional outcome comparable to conventional approaches, but with specific complications related to the technique. Robotics might potentially simplify the technical steps of distal rectal dissection, with a shorter learning curve compared to the laparoscopic transanal approach, but with higher costs. The objective of this review is to critically analyze the available literature concerning robotic transanal TME in order to define its role in the management of rectal cancer and to depict future perspectives in this field of research.

End-to-end versus end-to-side anastomosis for low anterior resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Numerous randomized controlled trials comparing end-to-end and end-to-side anastomoses after low anterior resection have been performed. Rates of anastomotic leakage and overall postoperative morbidity, as well as reported quality of postoperative bowel function, vary across individual studies. As such, this study meta-analyzes pooled data comparing end-to-end and end-to-side anastomosis after low anterior resection in terms of anastomotic leak rate and postoperative bowel function.

METHODS

A search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Articles were included if they were randomized controlled trials that compared end-to-end and end-to-side anastomosis after low anterior resection for benign or malignant disease. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak rate. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects.

RESULTS

From 1,452 citations, 6 randomized controlled trials with 270 patients undergoing end-to-end anastomosis (45.9% female, mean age: 63.5 years) and 268 patients undergoing end-to-side anastomosis (52.4% female, mean age: 64.0 years) met inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing end-to-side anastomosis had a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leak (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15-0.93, P = .04, I²=0%). There were no differences in rate of anastomotic stenosis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.21-5.19, P = .97) or overall postoperative morbidity (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.33-1.07, P = .08). Narrative review of postoperative bowel function demonstrated evidence of improved Wexner scores for 6 months postoperatively in patients undergoing end-to-side anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

End-to-side anastomosis significantly reduces the risk of anastomotic leak after low anterior resection. Additional prospective trials are warranted to confirm the findings of this review and to contribute to the growing evidence-base aimed at optimization of bowel function after low anterior resection.

Enhanced postoperative recovery with minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal surface malignancies of gastrointestinal origin

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are the treatment of choice for select patients with peritoneal surface malignancies; however, the traditional open approach may be associated with significant morbidity. We evaluated postoperative outcomes with minimally invasive (MI) CRS and HIPEC.

METHODS

Review of our institutional database identified 47 patients who underwent optimal cytoreduction (CC0 or CC1). Those with a PCI ≤ 15 and primary malignancy of gastrointestinal origin were then selected for subgroup analysis. Multivariable regression was performed to identify factors impacting postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Demographic data did not significantly differ between open (n = 24) and minimally invasive (n = 9) groups. The MI group had a mean age of 57.34 ± 14.92, BMI of 27.03 ± 4.27, Charlson comorbidity score of 1.78 ± 1.72, and PCI of 5.56 ± 5.08. Mean time to flatus (days) was 2.78 in the MI group and 5.04 in the open group (p < 0.001), and mean length of IV analgesic use (days) was 3.11 in the MI group compared to 6.00 in the open group (p = 0.006). Mean length of stay (days) was 5.11 in the MI group and 8.67 in the open group (p = 0.033). Surgical approach (p = 0.037) and BMI (p = 0.039) were the only factors impacting length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive CRS and HIPEC is an excellent option for low volume peritoneal disease of gastrointestinal origin. A minimally invasive approach yields faster return of bowel function, reduced postoperative analgesia requirements, and shorter hospital stay.

Assessment of Anastomotic Perfusion in Left-Sided Robotic Assisted Colorectal Resection by Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography

Background

Indocyanine green fluorescent angiography (IcGA) has been used with success in guiding intraoperative management to prevent colorectal anastomotic complications. Prior studies in open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery, such as PILLAR II, have demonstrated a low anastomotic leak rate (1.4%). As the minimally invasive approach progresses from laparoscopic to robotic approach, the effect and safety of IcGA in assessing anastomotic perfusion in the latter deserve further investigation.

Methods

The objective of the study was to determine the safety of IcGA in guiding intraoperative management of robotic assisted colorectal resection via perfusion assessment. The design was single-surgeon, retrospective case-control study. 74 patients underwent left-sided robotic assisted colorectal resection and anastomosis with IcGA guidance. 30 historical controls underwent left-sided robotic assisted colorectal resection and anastomosis without IcGA. Clinical, demographic, operative, and outcome variables were tabulated.

Results

In the control group, 1 patient suffered a postoperative anastomotic stricture requiring no surgery, and 1 patient suffered an anastomotic dehiscence requiring return to the operating room. There were no anastomotic complications in the IcGA group, including 4 patients who underwent a change in the chosen level of anastomosis based on intraoperative IcGA.

Conclusion

IcGA is safe to use as demonstrated by the very low rate of complications in this case series. It is also safe to rely on to guide re-resection and recreation of an anastomosis intraoperatively by demonstration of blood flow. This may help offset the loss of tactile feedback and assessment of tension in the robotic platform.

Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial

AIM

To compare outcomes in patients undergoing rectal resection by robotic total meso-rectal excision (RTME) vs laparoscopic total meso-rectal excision (LTME).

METHODS

Standard medical electronic databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus were searched to find relevant articles. The data retrieved from all types of included published comparative trials in patients undergoing RTME vs LTME was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes were evaluated to assess the effectiveness of both techniques of TME. The summated outcome of continuous variables was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and dichotomous data was presented in odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

One RCT (ROLARR trial) and 27 other comparative studies reporting the non-oncological and oncological outcomes following RTME vs LTME were included in this review. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the RTME was associated with longer operation time (SMD, 0.46; 95%CI: 0.25, 0.67; z = 4.33; P = 0.0001), early passage of first flatus (P = 0.002), lower risk of conversion (P = 0.00001) and shorter hospitalization (P = 0.01). The statistical equivalence was seen between RTME and LTME for non-oncological variables like blood loss, morbidity, mortality and re-operation risk. The oncological variables such as recurrence (P = 0.96), number of harvested nodes (P = 0.49) and positive circumferential resection margin risk (P = 0.53) were also comparable in both groups. The length of distal resection margins was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RTME is feasible and oncologically safe but failed to demonstrate any superiority over LTME for many surgical outcomes except early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion and shorter hospitalization.

Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot?

BACKGROUND

The number of robotic surgical procedures performed yearly is constantly rising, due to improved dexterity and visualization capabilities compared with conventional methods. We hypothesized that outcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair would not be significantly different from outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair.

METHODS

All patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair between 2012 and 2016 were identified using institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Demographics; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics; and outcomes were evaluated based on method of repair (Robot, Lap, or Open). Categorical variables were analyzed by Chi-square test and continuous variables using Mann-Whitney U.

RESULTS

A total of 510 patients were identified who underwent unilateral inguinal hernia repair (Robot: 13.8% [n = 69], Lap: 48.1% [n = 241], Open: 38.1% [n = 191]). There were no demographic differences between groups other than age (Robot: 52 [39-62], Lap: 57 [45-67], and Open: 56 [48-67] years, p = 0.03). Operative duration was also different (Robot: 105 [76-146] vs. Lap: 81 [61-103] vs. Open: 71 [56-88] min, p < 0.001). There were no operative mortalities and all patients except one were discharged home the same day. Postoperative occurrences (adverse events, readmissions, and death) were similar between groups (Robot: 2.9% [2], Lap: 3.3% [8], Open: 5.2% [10], p = 0.53). Although rare, there was a significant difference in rate of postoperative skin and soft tissue infection (Robot: 2.9% [2] vs. Lap: 0% [0] vs. Open: 0.5% [1], p = 0.02). Cost was significantly different between groups (Robot: $7162 [$5942-8375] vs. Lap: $4527 [$2310-6003] vs. Open: $4264 [$3277-5143], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair were similar to outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair. Longer operative duration during robotic repair may contribute to higher rates of skin and soft tissue infection. Higher cost should be considered, along with surgeon comfort level and patient preference when deciding whether inguinal hernia repair is approached robotically.

Comparison of outcome and cost among open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer: A propensity score matched analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies evaluating outcomes of different approaches for rectal cancer are scarce.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database between 2008 and 2012. We compared the outcomes and costs among rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries using propensity scores for adjusted and matched analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 194 957 rectal cancer patients. Over the 5-year period, the annual admission number decreased by 13.9%, the in-hospital mortality rate decreased by 32.2%, while the total hospitalization cost increased by 13.6%. Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery had significantly lower length of stay (LOS) (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.57-0.84), comparable wound complications (OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.70-1.65) and higher cost (OR 1.42, 95%CI 1.13-1.79), while open surgery had significantly longer LOS (OR 1.38, 95%CI 1.19-1.59), more wound complications (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.08-1.79), and comparable cost (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.79-1.07). There were no difference in in-hospital mortality among three approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery was associated with better outcomes than open surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with higher cost, but no advantage over laparoscopic surgery in terms of mortality and complications. Studies on cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery may be warranted.