Updates on Robotic CME for Right Colon Cancer: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision: a retrospective multicenter study with propensity score matching

Objective

During the past decade, the concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been developed in an attempt to minimize recurrence for right-sided colon cancer. This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME for right-sided colon cancer.

Methods

We performed a retrospective multicenter propensity score matching study. From July 2016 to July 2021, 382 consecutive patients from different Chinese surgical departments were available for inclusion out of an initial cohort of 412, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME. Data of all patients were retrospectively collected and reviewed. Of these, 149 cases were performed by a robotic approach, while the other 233 cases were done by laparoscopy. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes between the robotic and the laparoscopic groups (n = 142).

Results

Before propensity score matching, there were no statistical differences regarding the sex, history of abdominal surgery, body mass index (BMI), American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, tumor location, and center between groups (p > 0.05), while a significant difference was observed regarding age (p = 0.029). After matching, two comparable groups of 142 cases were obtained with equivalent patient characteristics (p > 0.05). Blood loss, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of stay, and complications were not different between groups (p > 0.05). The robotic group showed a significantly lower conversion rate (0% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.03), but a longer operative time (200.9 min vs. 182.3 min, p < 0.001) and a higher total hospital cost (85,016 RMB vs. 58,266 RMB, p < 0.001) compared with the laparoscopic group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was comparable (20.4 vs. 20.5, p = 0.861). Incidence of complications, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar between groups (p > 0.05). The 2-year disease-free survival rates were 84.9% and 87.1% (p = 0.679), and the overall survival rates between groups were 83.8% and 80.7% (p = 0.943).

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, the outcomes of robotic right hemicolectomy with CME were comparable to the laparoscopic procedures with fewer conversions to open surgery. More clinical advantages of the robotic surgery system need to be further confirmed by well-conducted randomized clinical trials with large cohorts of patients.

Robotic colectomy with CME versus laparoscopic colon resection with or without CME for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare the robotic complete mesocolon excision (RCME) to laparoscopic colectomy (LC) with (LCME) or without CME (LC non-CME) in postoperative outcomes, harvested lymph nodes and disease-free survival.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded seven comparative studies including 677 patients: 269 patients in the RCME group and 408 in the LC group. The pooled analysis concluded to a lower conversion rate in the RCME group (OR=0.17; 95% CI [0.04, 0.74], p=0.02). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of morbidity (OR=1.03; 95% CI [0.70, 1.53], p=0.87), anastomosis leakage (OR=0.83; 95% CI [0.18, 3.72], p=0.81), bleeding (OR=1.90; 95% CI [0.64, 5.58], p=0.25), wound infection (OR=1.37; 95% CI [0.51, 3.68], p=0.53), operative time (mean difference (MD)=36.32; 95% CI [-24.30, 96.93], p=0.24), hospital stay (MD=-0.94; 95% CI [-2.03, 0.15], p=0.09) and disease-free survival (OR=1.29; 95% CI [0.71, 2.35], p=0.41). In the subgroup analysis, the operative time was significantly shorter in the LCME group than RCME group (MD=50.93; 95% CI [40.05, 61.81], p<0.01) and we noticed a greater number of harvested lymph nodes in the RCME group compared with LC non-CME group (MD=8.96; 95% CI [5.98, 11.93], p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach for CME ensures a lower conversion rate than the LC. RCME had a longer operative time than the LCME subgroup and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes than the LC non-CME group.

Robotic-assisted Surgery: Expanding Indication to Colon Cancer in Japan

In recent years, robotic-assisted surgery has demonstrated remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for colorectal cancer. While there have been fewer studies investigating robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of colon cancer than rectal cancer, evidence regarding robotic-assisted colectomy has been accumulating due to increasing use of the procedure. Robotic-assisted colectomy generally requires a long operative time and involves high costs. However, as evidence is increasingly supportive of its higher accuracy and less invasive nature compared to laparoscopic colectomy, the procedure is anticipated to improve the ratio of conversion to laparotomy and accelerate postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has also been suggested for a specific level of effectiveness in manipulative procedures, such as intracorporeal anastomosis, and is increasingly indicated as a less problematic procedure compared to conventional laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of long-term oncological outcomes. Although robotic-assisted colectomy has been widely adopted abroad, only a limited number of institutions have been using this procedure in Japan. Further accumulation of experience and studies investigating surgical outcomes using this approach are required in Japan.