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

Pattern of colorectal surgery and long-term survival: 10-year experience from a single center

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased in recent decades, and ranks fourth among males and third among females in China. Surgical resection remains the most important treatment modality for curative intent in CRC. Several studies found that surgeon volumes and specialization appeared to be associated with improved overall survival (OS). Moreover, numerous reports have suggested that specialization and minimally invasive surgery have gained increased popularity in CRC surgery. However, few studies have specifically examined the role and long-term survival of all stage CRC in a real-world study.

AIM

To evaluate the effect of surgeon specialization on survival changes and minimally invasive surgery utilization in a real world study.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis on the association between surgeon specialization and OS between 2008 and 2013 in Zhongshan Hospital CRC database was performed. Standard demographic, clinicopathologic, surgical and follow-up data were obtained from the CRC database. Surgeon specialty was categorized as colorectal surgeon (CS) and general surgeon (GS). CRC patients who underwent primary surgical resection were enrolled.

RESULTS

A total of 5141 CRC patients who underwent primary surgical resection between 2008 and 2013 were evaluated, 1748 (34.0%) of these by CS. The percentage of minimally invasive procedures in the CS group showed an increasing trend. There was no benefit associated with surgeon specialization for stage I, II and IV patients. Surgeon specialization exhibited a significant association with OS solely among stage III patients, with 5-year OS rates of 76% and 67% for the CS and GS groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Further analyses found that surgeon specialization was significantly associated with survival only in stage III rectal patients, and the 5-year OS rate in the CS group and GS group was 80% and 67%, respectively (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Surgeon specialization is associated with improved OS after primary surgery in stage III rectal patients. An appropriate surgical technique, perioperative program and adjuvant therapy may contribute to survival benefit in these patients.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

This study attempted to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RS), and open surgery (OS) for lateral lymph-node dissection (LLND) in treatment of rectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect cohort studies on outcomes of LS, RS, and OS for LLND for rectal cancer. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the quality of cohort studies. Primary outcomes should at least include one of the following clinical outcome measures: operative time, blood loss, total lymph-node harvest, positive resection margin rate, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. A network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software. Fourteen cohort studies including 8612 patients were eligible for inclusion. The network meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of intraoperative outcomes, the RS group had the longest operative time, while the OS group had the shortest; the LS and RS groups had significantly less blood loss than the OS group. In terms of histological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes harvested and the positive margin rate among the LS, RS, and OS groups (P > 0.05). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the OS group had the highest probability of postoperative complications and the longest hospital stay, followed by the LS group, with the RS group being the lowest. RS was the best method in blood loss, postoperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital stay, followed by LS. OS had the shortest operative time and the highest blood loss.

Conversion rate to open surgery during transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: a single-center experience

Minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer have demonstrated considerable advantages in terms of faster recovery and less post-operative complications. However, due to the complex anatomy and a limited surgical field, conversion to open surgery is still sometimes required, with a negative impact on the short-and long-term outcomes. The purpose of this study was to analyse the conversion rate to open abdominal surgery during laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) procedures performed at a high-volume Italian referral center. All consecutive TaTME performed for mid-to-low rectal cancer between 2015 and 2023 were reviewed, independently if treated with a primary anastomosis (with/without a diverting ostomy) or an end stoma. All procedures were performed using a standardized approach by the same surgical team. Patients with benign diagnosis that underwent different-from rectal resection procedures and cases pre-operatively scheduled for open surgery were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of conversion, defined as an un-planned intraoperative switch to open surgery using a midline laparotomy. Secondary aims included the comparison of patients who had a longer vs shorter operative time. Out of 220 patients, 210 were selected. In 187 cases, a primary anastomosis was performed, while 23 patients received a terminal colostomy (1 in the converted group; 22 in the full MIS- TaTME group, 10.6%). A surgical approach modification occurred in two cases, with a conversion rate of 0.95%. Median operative time was 281 min. Reasons for conversions included intra-operative difficulties impairing the mini-invasive procedure without intra-operative complications in one case, and difficulties in the laparoscopic control of an intraoperative bleeding due to a splenic lesion in another patient. Male sex and a higher BMI were found to be statistically significantly associated to longer operative time (respectively: p = 0.001 and p = 0.0025). In a high-volume center, a standardized TaTME is associated to a low conversion rate to open abdominal surgery.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for visceral obesity in mid-low rectal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

Obesity is becoming more and more common, and measuring visceral fat area (VFA) is a useful diagnostic technique for visceral obesity (VO). The purpose of this research is to compare the surgical results of robotic versus laparoscopic rectal surgery, with a focus on assessing the benefits of the latter method for treating both VO and mid-low rectal cancer. Patients receiving laparoscopic or robotic anterior rectal excision at Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital's general surgery department were included in the retrospective analysis. 242 people in all took part in the study; 121 cases were assigned to the robotic surgery (RS) group and another 121 cases to the laparoscopic surgery (LS) group. In comparison to LS, our results show that RS led to a shorter period for the recovery of bowel function (p = 0.03), a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001), a smaller intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001), and a shorter time until the commencement of oral intake (p = 0.041). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the indices of histopathologic specimens, the proportion of temporary loop ileostomy, and the incidence of early postoperative problems (p > 0.05). When patients with VO undergo surgery for rectal cancer, RS has the added benefit of accelerating patient recovery while producing results that are similar to LS in the near run.

Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant literature from PubMed, NCBI, Medline, and Springer databases, spanning the database inception until August 2023. The focus of this systematic review was on controlled studies that compared the treatment outcomes of robot-assisted (Rob) and conventional laparoscopy (Lap) in the context of mid and low rectal cancer. Data extraction and literature review were meticulously conducted by two independent researchers (HMW and RKG). The synthesized data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, adhering to established methodological standards in systematic reviews. The primary outcomes encompass perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes include long-term outcomes.

RESULT

A total of 11 studies involving 2239 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were included (3 RCTs and 8 NRCTs); the Rob group consisted of 1111 cases, while the Lap group included 1128 cases. The Rob group exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (MD =  -40.01, 95% CI: -57.61 to -22.42, P < 0.00001), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.82, P = 0.02), a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.18, P = 0.001), and a lower CRM positive rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95, P = 0.04). Additionally, the Rob group had lower postoperative morbidity rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) and a lower occurrence rate of complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.90, P = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis revealed a lower anastomotic leakage rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the analysis of operation time (P = 0.42), occurrence rates of protective stoma (P = 0.81), PRM (P = 0.92), and DRM (P = 0.23), time to flatus (P = 0.18), time to liquid diet (P = 0.65), total hospital stay (P = 0.35), 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.67), and 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment for mid and low rectal cancer yields favorable outcomes, demonstrating both efficacy and safety. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, patients experience reduced intraoperative bleeding and a lower incidence of complications. Notably, the method achieves comparable short-term and long-term treatment results to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery, thus justifying its consideration for widespread clinical application.

Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical challenges which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Developments in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches and enhanced peri-operative care have facilitated improved long term outcomes. However, the optimum approach to PE remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies comparing MIS (robotic or laparoscopic) approaches for PE versus the open approach for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically and a meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

11 studies were identified, including 2009 patients, of whom 264 (13.1%) underwent MIS PE approaches. The MIS group displayed comparable R0 resections (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 0.98, 1.07, p = 0.35)) and Lymph node yield (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD] 1.42, 95% CI -0.58, 3.43, p = 0.16), and although MIS had a trend towards improved towards improved survival and recurrence outcomes, this did not reach statistical significance. MIS was associated with prolonged operating times (WMD 67.93, 95% CI 4.43, 131.42, p < 0.00001) however, this correlated with less intra-operative blood loss, and a shorter length of post-operative stay (WMD -3.89, 955 CI -6.53, -1.25, p < 0.00001). Readmission rates were higher with MIS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.11, 4.02, p = 0.02), however, rates of pelvic abscess/sepsis were decreased (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21, 0.95, p = 0.04), and there was no difference in overall, major, or specific morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

MIS approaches are a safe and feasible option for PE, with no differences in survival or recurrence outcomes compared to the open approach. MIS also reduced the length of post-operative stay and decreased blood loss, offset by increased operating time.

Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved using open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or transanal techniques (TaTME). However, the optimal approach for access remains controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess operative and oncological outcomes of all four surgical techniques.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched systematically from inception to September 2020, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two TME surgical techniques. A network meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects framework and mixed treatment comparison was performed. Primary outcomes were the rate of clear circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as > 1 mm from the closest tumour to the cut edge of the tissue, and completeness of mesorectal excision. Secondary outcomes included radial and distal resection margin distance, postoperative complications, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the relative effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome. The higher the SUCRA value, the higher the likelihood that the intervention is in the top rank or one of the top ranks.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 6151 patients were included. Compared with OpTME, there was no difference in the rates of clear CRM: LapTME RR = 0.99 (95% (Credible interval) CrI 0.97-1.0); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1). There was no difference in the rates of complete mesorectal excision: LapTME RR = 0.98 (95% CrI 0.98-1.1); RoTME RR = 1.1 (95% CrI 0.98-1.4); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.91-1.2). RoTME was associated with improved distal resection margin distance compared to other techniques (SUCRA 99%). LapTME had a higher rate of conversion to open surgery when compared with RoTME: RoTME RR = 0.23 (95% CrI 0.034-0.70). Length of stay was shortest in RoTME compared to other surgical approaches: OpTME mean difference in days (MD) 3.3 (95% CrI 0.12-6.0); LapTME MD 1.7 (95% CrI - 1.1-4.4); TaTME MD 1.3 (95% CrI - 5.2-7.4). There were no differences in 5-year overall survival (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.74, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.79, 3.4), disease-free survival rates (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.76, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.52, 2.4), or anastomotic leakage (LapTME RR = 0.92 (95% CrI 0.63, 1.1); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.48, 1.8); TaTME RR = 0.53 (95% CrI 0.19, 1.2). The overall quality of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments across all outcomes including primary and secondary outcomes was deemed low.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients eligible for a RCT, RoTME achieved improved distal resection margin distance and a shorter length of hospital stay. No other differences were observed in oncological or recovery parameters between (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or trans-anal TME (TaTME). However, the overall quality of evidence across all outcomes was deemed low.

Analysis of bowel function, urogenital function, and long-term follow-up outcomes associated with robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgical approaches to total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The present study comparatively analyzed short-term clinical effectiveness and long-term follow-up endpoints associated with robotic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (LAS) when used to treat low rectal cancer.

METHOD

Within such a single-center retrospective cohort analysis, low rectal cancer patients that underwent RAS (n=200) or LAS (n=486) between January 2015 and beginning of July 2018 were enrolled.

RESULTS

The mean operative durations in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 249±64 min and 203±47 min, respectively (P<0.001). Temporary ileostomy rates in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 64.5% and 51.6% (P = 0.002). In addition, major variations across such cohorts regarding catheter removal timing, time to liquid intake, time to first leaving bed, and length of hospitalization (all P<0.001). This distal resection margin distance within the RAS cohort was diminished in comparison to LAS cohort (P=0.004). For patients within the LAS cohort, the time required to recover from reduced urinary/female sexual function was > 6 months post-surgery (P<0.0001), whereas within the RAS cohort this interval was 3 months (P<0.0001). At 6 months post-surgery, male sexual function within RAS cohort was improved in comparison to LAS cohort (P<0.001). At 6 months post-surgery, Wexner scores revealed similar results (P<0.001). No major variations within overall or disease-free survival were identified across these cohorts at 3 or 5 years post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic sphincter-preserving surgery is a safe and effective surgical technique in low rectal patients in terms of postoperative oncological safety and long-term endpoints. And the RAS strategy provides certain additional benefits with respect to short-term urogenital/anorectal functional recovery in treated patients compared to LAS.

Application of da Vinci robot and laparoscopy on repeat hepatocellular carcinoma

Background:

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection has been used safely and effectively on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few studies have been performed on repeat HCC surgery by a da Vinci robot. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of the patients with repeat HCC treated using a da Vinci robot or laparoscopic system at a single centre.

Methods:

All of the patients with repeat HCC treated using a da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic system between April 2017 and April 2020 were included in this retrospective study.

Results:

There were 24 patients with a mean age of 56 years who underwent da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic surgery for treatment of repeat HCC who were included in this study. The operations lasted 152 ± 25 min and 142 ± 34 min. The average intraoperative blood loss was 284 ± 89 ml and 251 ± 92 ml. The average hospitalisation stay lasted 9 ± 2 days and 9 ± 3 days. The rates at which surgeons switched to open surgery were 9% and 23%. No serious perioperative or post-operative complications were encountered.

Conclusion:

Da Vinci robots can provide a precise dissection of the tissue under a perfect view. It is a technically feasible procedure for less rates at which surgeons switched to open surgery on repeat HCC.

Reducing retraction forces with tactile feedback during robotic total mesorectal excision in a porcine model

Excessive tissue-instrument interaction forces during robotic surgery have the potential for causing iatrogenic tissue damages. The current in vivo study seeks to assess whether tactile feedback could reduce intraoperative tissue-instrument interaction forces during robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision. Five subjects, including three experts and two novices, used the da Vinci robot to perform total mesorectum excision in four pigs. The grip force in the left arm, used for retraction, and the pushing force in the right arm, used for blunt pelvic dissection around the rectum, were recorded. Tissue-instrument interaction forces were compared between trials done with and without tactile feedback. The mean force exerted on the tissue was consistently higher in the retracting arm than the dissecting arm (3.72 ± 1.19 vs 0.32 ± 0.36 N, p < 0.01). Tactile feedback brought about significant reductions in average retraction forces (3.69 ± 1.08 N vs 4.16 ± 1.12 N, p = 0.02), but dissection forces appeared unaffected (0.43 ± 0.42 vs 0.37 ± 0.28 N, p = 0.71). No significant differences were found between retraction and dissection forces exerted by novice and expert robotic surgeons. This in vivo animal study demonstrated the efficacy of tactile feedback in reducing retraction forces during total mesorectal excision. Further research is required to quantify the clinical impact of such force reduction.

Colorectal robotic surgery: INCA's experience

Introduction Minimally invasive surgery has revolutionized surgical management in the treatment of colorectal neoplasms, reducing morbidity and mortality, hospitalization, inactivity time and minimizing cost, as well as providing adequate oncological results when compared to the conventional approach. Robotic surgery, with Da Vinci Platform, emerges as a step ahead for its potentials. The objective of this article is to report the single institutional experience with the use of Da Vinci Platform in robotic colorectal surgeries performed at a reference center in oncological surgery in Brazil.

Materials and methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on the prospective database of patients from the institution submitted to robotic surgery for treatment of colorectal cancer from July 2012 to September 2017. Clinical and surgical variables were analyzed as predictors of morbidity and mortality.

Results A total of 117 patients underwent robotic surgery. The complications related to surgery occurred in 33 patients (28%), the most frequent being anastomotic fistula and surgical wound infection, which corresponded to 11% and 3%, respectively. Conversion rate was 1.7%. Median length of stay was 5 days. The only variable associated with increase of complications and death risk was BMI >30, with p-value of 0.038 and 0.027, respectively.

Conclusion Robotic surgery is safe and feasible for approaching colorectal cancer surgeries, presenting satisfactory results regarding length of hospital stay and rate of operative complications, as well as presenting a low rate of conversion. Obesity has been shown to be a risk factor for surgical complication in robotic colorectal surgery.

Effects of Sevoflurane versus Propofol on Endogenous Nitric Oxide Metabolism during Laparoscopic Surgery

For laparoscopic surgery, it is very difficult to assess the effect of different medicines used in the surgical procedure on the surgical results. In the past, doctors could use sevoflurane to numb and calm patients. For decades, this type of treatment has been fairly reliable and effective, but for laparoscopic surgery, the use of sevoflurane can lead to a wide range of blood glucose changes, so in recent years, sevoflurane compared to propofol in laparoscopic surgery on endogenous and nitrogen oxide metabolism has been studied more and more. In this paper, a variety of research methods were used to study the phenomenon of shock and excessive anesthesia encountered by patients in the treatment process. Through observation and drug experiment of patients in different treatment courses and treatment stages, patients were asked to use sevoflurane and propofol to conduct double-blind experiments on their own drug effects. At the same time, through the long-term observation of patients with different diseases and patients who need laparoscopic surgery, the nitrogen oxide metabolism in patients with sevoflurane compared with propofol endogenous was studied and analyzed. Through three groups of different conditions, the experimental group, the blind test group, and the control group were studied. To conclude, in laparoscopic surgery, the use of sevoflurane compared with propofol can have a good impact on the endogenous drug and nitrogen oxide metabolism. It can achieve a good effect on the anesthesia effect of surgery, the maintenance of patient's physical signs and heart rate, which is very beneficial to the operation. Conclusion. Sevoflurane compared with propofol has a good effect on endogenous nitrogen oxide metabolism in laparoscopic surgery.

Surgical approach for rectal cancer: A network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME approaches

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) of rectal cancer remains controversial.

AIM

To compare short- and long-term outcomes after open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME) and transanal TME (TaTME).

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was performed up to January 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least 2 TME strategies. A Bayesian arm-based random effect network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, specifically, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC).

RESULTS

30 RCTs (and six updates) of 5586 patients with rectal cancer were included. No significant differences were identified in recurrence rates or survival rates. Operating time was shorter with OpTME (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.96) compared to LapTME, RoTME and TaTME. Although OpTME was associated with the most blood loss (SUCRA 0.90) and had a slower recovery with increased length of stay (SUCRA 0.90) compared to the minimally invasive techniques, there was no difference in postoperative morbidity. OpTME was associated with a more complete TME specimen compared to LapTME (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.01, 1.11), and TaTME had less involved CRMs (RR 0.173, 95% CrI 0.02, 0.76) versus LapTME. There were no differences between the modalities in terms of deep TME defects, DRM distance, or lymph node yield.

CONCLUSIONS

While OpTME was the most effective TME modality for short term histopathological resection quality, there was no difference in long-term oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches enhance postoperative recovery, at the cost of longer operating times. Technique selection should be based on individual tumour characteristics and patient expectations, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise.

Safe surgery in the elderly: A review of outcomes following robotic proctectomy from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a cross-sectional study

Background

As our nation's population ages, operating on older and sicker patients occurs more frequently. Robotic operations have been thought to bridge the gap between a laparoscopic and an open approach, especially in more complex cases like proctectomy.

Methods

Our objective was to evaluate the use and outcomes of robotic proctectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer in the elderly. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS; 2006-2013) was performed. All cases were restricted to age 70 years old or greater.

Results

We identified 6740 admissions for rectal cancer including: 5879 open, 666 laparoscopic, and 195 robotic procedures. The median age was 77 years old. The incidence of a robotic proctectomy increased by 39%, while the open approach declined by 6% over the time period studied. Median (interquartile range) length of stay was shorter for robotic procedures at 4.3 (3-7) days, compared to laparoscopic 5.8 (4-8) and open at 6.7 (5-10) days (p < 0.01), while median total hospital charges were greater in the robotic group compared to laparoscopic and open cases ($64,743 vs. $55,813 vs. $50,355, respectively, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the risk of total complications between the different approaches following multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Robotic proctectomy was associated with a shorter LOS, and this may act as a surrogate marker for an overall improvement in adverse events. These results demonstrate that a robotic approach is a safe and feasible option, and should not be discounted solely based on age or comorbidities.

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.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

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

Critical and Challenging Issues in the Surgical Management of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer

Despite innovative advancements, the management of distally located rectal cancer (RC) remains a formidable endeavor. The critical location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin that tends to involve the sphincters and surrounding organs, pelvic lymph node metastasis, and anastomotic complications. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of issues beyond the performance of total mesorectal excision (TME). For decades, abdominoperineal resection had been the standard of care for low-lying RC; however, its association with high rates of tumor recurrence, tumor perforation, and poorer survival has stimulated the development of novel surgical techniques and modifications, such as extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Similarly, difficult dissections and poor visualization, especially in obese patients with low-lying tumors, have led to the development of transanal TME or the "bottom-to-up" approach. Additionally, while neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise, functional outcomes remain an issue. Nevertheless, neoadjuvant treatment can lead to significant tumor regression and complete pathological response, permitting the utilization of organ-preserving strategies. At present, an East and West dualism pervades the management of lateral lymph node metastasis, thereby calling for a more global and united approach. Moreover, with the increasing importance of quality of life, a tailored, individualized treatment approach is of utmost importance when taking into account oncologic and anticipated functional outcomes.

The Future Medical Science and Colorectal Surgeons

Future medical technology breakthroughs will build from the incredible progress made in computers, biotechnology, and nanotechnology and from the information learned from the human genome. With such technology and information, computer-aided diagnoses, organ replacement, gene therapy, personalized drugs, and even age reversal will become possible. True 3-dimensional system technology will enable surgeons to envision key clinical features and will help them in planning complex surgery. Surgeons will enter surgical instructions in a virtual space from a remote medical center, order a medical robot to perform the operation, and review the operation in real time on a monitor. Surgeons will be better than artificial intelligence or automated robots when surgeons (or we) love patients and ask questions for a better future. The purpose of this paper is looking at the future medical science and the changes of colorectal surgeons.

Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery offers multiple advantages for surgeons, and it seems to yield the same clinical outcomes as regards the short-time follow-up of patients compared to conventional laparoscopy. This surgical approach emerges as a technique aiming at overcoming the limitations posed by rectal cancer and other surgical fields of difficult access, in order to obtain better outcomes and a shorter learning curve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of robot-assisted rectal surgery was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in October 2015 in PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for articles published in the last 10 years and pertaining the learning curve of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. It consisted of the following key words: "rectal cancer/learning curve/robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery".

RESULTS

A total of 34 references were identified, but only 9 full texts specifically addressed the analysis of the learning curve in robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery, 7 were case series and 2 were non-randomised case-comparison series. Eight papers used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, and only one author divided the series into two groups to compare both. The mean number of cases for phase I of the learning curve was calculated to be 29.7 patients; phase II corresponds to a mean number 37.4 patients. The mean number of cases required for the surgeon to be classed as an expert in robotic surgery was calculated to be 39 patients.

CONCLUSION

Robotic advantages could have an impact on learning curve for rectal cancer and lower the number of cases that are necessary for rectal resections.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

A review on robotic surgery in rectal cancer

Robotic surgery has the upper hand when compared to the laparoscopic approach in terms of superior visualisation, flexibility in movement, steadiness and accessibility to confined anatomical spaces. Nevertheless, limitations still exist with regards to cost, reduced tactile sensation, time-consuming setup and a significant learning curve to achieve. Although studies have shown better or at least comparable outcomes between the robotic and laparoscopic approach, the limitations mentioned result in poor penetrance among centres and surgeons. Advancements in robotic surgery technology and attaining the acquired skillset will translate into better clinical outcomes for patients.

Single stage robotic total mesorectal excision-a stepwise approach

Background

The totally robotic procedure was traditionally described as a two-stage technique or a three-stage technique. The number of stages corresponds to the number of movements of the robotic cart. In this video article, we develop a stepwise approach video of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid rectal cancer (the surgery was performed by SHK) using a da Vinci^® Si HD Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) at Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.

Methods

After the induction of general anesthesia, the patient is placed in a modified lithotomy position. Six ports are used, including one 12-mm camera port, four 8-mm robotic working ports, and one 5-mm port for the assistant. The patient is tilted to the right side and placed in the Trendelenburg position. The small-bowel loops retracted out from the pelvic cavity to the right upper quadrant (RUQ) to expose the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). The surgery is divided into three phases: (I) abdominal phase: vascular ligation, and sigmoid colon to splenic flexure mobilization; (II) pelvic dissection phase; and (III) rectal reconstruction phase. Mesorectal clearing was done at the level of rectal transection line (1-2 cm from distal tumor margin), then the rectum was transected with robotic stapler. Once this step is finished, the robotic arms are undocked and the cart is moved away from the patient. The remaining steps are performed in a conventional laparoscopic method.

Results

Robotic TME was performed in a 56-year-old man with an endoscopically define rectal mass. The lesion was moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, 8 cm from the anal verge (AV). The rectal mass was managed with single stage robotic TME. The operative time was 160 minutes and the patient was discharge on post operative day 10. Final pathology revealed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma.

Conclusions

Single stage robotic TME was efficient and feasible technique for mid rectal cancer resection.