A retrospective study of post-operative complications and cost analysis in robotic rectal resection versus laparoscopic rectal resection

Comparison of efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To some extent, the robotic technique does offer certain benefits in rectal cancer surgery than laparoscopic one, while remains a topic of ongoing debate for rectal cancer patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT).

METHODS

Potential studies published until January 2024 were obtained from Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed. Dichotomous and continuous variables were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs, respectively. A random effects model was used if the I2 statistic >50%; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 1079 patients were analysed. The robotic-assisted group had an 0.4 cm shorter distance from the anal verge (95% CI: -0.680 to -0.114, P =0.006) and 1.94 times higher complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rate (OR=1.936, 95% CI: 1.061-3.532, P =0.031). However, the operation time in the robotic-assisted group was 54 min longer (95% CI: 20.489-87.037, P =0.002) than the laparoscopic group. In addition, the robotic-assisted group had a lower open conversion rate (OR=0.324, 95% CI: 0.129-0.816, P =0.017) and a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD=-1.127, 95% CI: -2.071 to -0.184, P =0.019).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery offered several advantages over laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer following NCRT in terms of resection of lower tumours with improved TME completeness, lower open conversion rate, and shorter hospital stay, despite the longer operative time.

The role of robotic-assisted surgery in the management of rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer poses a significant global health burden. There is a lack of concrete evidence concerning the benefits of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for rectal cancer surgery as compared to laparoscopic and open techniques. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the intraoperative, postoperative, and safety outcomes of robotic surgery in this context.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A search of MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Randomized and non-randomized studies up to February 2, 2024 comparing robotic surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery for rectal cancer. The outcomes of interest were operative time, blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, conversion rate, postoperative hospital stay, survival to hospital discharge, urinary retention rate, and anastomotic leakage rate. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool means and dichotomous data to derive weighted mean differences and odds ratios, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were shortlisted after the study selection process with a total of 25 458 rectal cancer patients. From the intraoperative outcomes, RAS was significantly associated with an increased operative time (WMD: 41.04, P <0.00001), decreased blood loss (WMD: -24.56, P <0.00001), decreased conversion rates (OR: 0.39, P <0.00001), lesser stay at the hospital (WMD: -1.93, P <0.00001), and no difference was found in lymph nodes harvested. Similarly, RAS group had a significantly greater survival to hospital discharge (OR: 1.90, P =0.04), decreased urinary retention rate (OR: 0.59, P =0.002), and no difference was seen in anastomotic leakage rate.

CONCLUSION

RAS demonstrates favorable outcomes for rectal cancer patients, contributing to global prevention and control efforts, health promotion, and addressing non-communicable disease risk factors. Further research and public awareness are needed to optimize RAS utilization in this context.

Radial resection margin distinguishes between superficial versus deep resection in colorectal cancer: a retrospective study

Randomized studies showed that robotic surgery was short-term useful and safe for cancer patients. We investigated whether robots improve deep resection margins or superficial resection margins for radial resection margins in terms of short-term results. From an institutional database, we selected all superficial groups (≤ 3 mm) and deeper groups (≥ 4 mm) with rectal cancer treated with resection for a year. We evaluated the short-term post-operative 90-day outcomes on a radial resection size-based margin differentiation, including the first bowel movement, length of hospital stay, sepsis, and harvested lymph node. The main results were grades III-IV on the Clavien-Dindo scale and complications. We found 120 patients who had oncologic resection of rectal cancer; 42 patients with a superficial radial resection margin of ≤ 3 mm, all the following outcomes improved: the harvested lymph node, proximal resection margin, TME, flatus time, liquid diet duration, anastomotic leakage, and sepsis. Among these advantages were a reduced risk of metastasis and an overall reduction in local recurrence.

Benefits of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in older adults compared with younger adults: a retrospective study

Randomized research demonstrated that robotic surgery was oncologically safe and beneficial in the short term. We investigated whether older adults benefit from robotics more than younger adults do in terms of short-term outcomes. We identified all older (≥ 70 years old) and younger (≤ 70) adults with rectal cancer treated with resection between 2019 and 2022 from an institutional database. We assessed the short-term post-operative 90-day outcomes, which included the first bowel movement, length of hospital duration, sepsis, and harvested lymph node on an age-based differentiation. The key outcomes were complications and grades III-IV on the Clavien-Dindo scale. We identified 298 individuals treated with oncologic resection of rectal cancer: 108 (36.6%) were older adults, while 190 (63.4%) were younger adults. Older adults treated with robotic surgery include 45 (41.6%), whereas 63 (58.3%) older adults were treated with laparoscopic surgery, and 85 (44.7%) younger adults were treated with robotic surgery, while 105 (55.2%) younger adults were treated with laparoscopic surgery. The Clavien-Dindo grading system exposes a substantial P < 0.05 in younger group, whereas grade III-IV patients are seen more frequently in laparoscopic surgery than robotic surgery. Younger and older persons both benefited differently from robotic surgery when compared to laparoscopic surgery in terms of major post-operative complications.

Current status of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and the expanding indications of the transanal approach for extended pelvic surgeries

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has been rapidly accepted as a promising surgical approach to the distal rectum. The benefits include ease of access to the bottom of the deep pelvis linearly over a short distance in order to easily visualize the important anatomy. Furthermore, the distal resection margins can be secured under direct vision. Additionally, a two-team approach combining taTME with a transabdominal approach could decrease the operative time and conversion rate. Although taTME was expected to become more rapidly popularized worldwide, enthusiasm for it has stalled due to unfamiliar intraoperative complications, a lack of oncologic evidence from randomized trials, and the widespread use of robotic surgery. While international registries have reported favorable short- and medium-term outcomes from taTME, a Norwegian national study reported a high local recurrence rate of 9.5%. The characteristics of the recurrences included rapid, multifocal growth in the pelvis, which was quite different from recurrences following traditional transabdominal TME; thus, the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Group reached a consensus for a temporary moratorium on the performance of taTME. To ensure acceptable baseline quality and patient safety, taTME should be performed by well-trained colorectal surgeons. Although the appropriate indications for taTME remain controversial, the transanal approach is extremely important as a means of goal setting in difficult TME cases and as an aid to the transabdominal approach in various types of extended pelvic surgeries. The benefits in transanal lateral lymph node dissection and pelvic exenteration are presented herein.