1
|
Goldstone RN, Francone T, Milky G, Shih IF, Bossie H, Li Y, Ricciardi R. Outcomes comparison of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic and open surgery for patients undergoing rectal cancer resection with concurrent stoma creation. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:4550-4558. [PMID: 38942946 PMCID: PMC11289169 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10996-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 06/09/2024] [Indexed: 06/30/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite widespread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in rectal cancer resection, there remains limited knowledge of its clinical advantage over laparoscopic (Lap) and open (OS) surgery. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of RAS with Lap and OS for rectal cancer. METHODS We identified all patients aged ≥ 18 years who had elective rectal cancer resection requiring temporary or permanent stoma formation from 1/2013 to 12/2020 from the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database. We completed multivariable logistic regression analysis accounting for hospital clustering to compare ileostomy formation between surgical approaches. Next, we built inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses to compare outcomes for ileostomy and permanent colostomy separately. Outcomes included postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, reoperation, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS A total of 12,787 patients (OS: 5599 [43.8%]; Lap: 2872 [22.5%]; RAS: 4316 [33.7%]) underwent elective rectal cancer resection. Compared to OS, patients who had Lap (OR 1.29, p < 0.001) or RAS (OR 1.53, p < 0.001) were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than permanent colostomy. In those with ileostomy, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.71, p < 0.001) and less bleeding (OR 0.50, p < 0.001) compared to Lap. In addition, RAS was associated with lower anastomotic leak (OR 0.25, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.51, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.70, p = 0.022) when compared to OS. In those patients who had permanent colostomy formation, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.72, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.78, p = 0.021), lower 30-day reoperation (OR 0.49, p < 0.001), and higher discharge to home (OR 1.26, p = 0.013) than Lap, as well as OS. CONCLUSION Rectal cancer patients treated with RAS were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than a permanent colostomy and more enhanced recovery compared to Lap and OS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert N Goldstone
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 15 Parkman Street WACC 460, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
| | - Todd Francone
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 15 Parkman Street WACC 460, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
| | | | | | | | - Yanli Li
- Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA
| | - Rocco Ricciardi
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 15 Parkman Street WACC 460, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Willis MA, Toews I, Meerpohl JJ, Kalff JC, Vilz TO. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 7:CD015626. [PMID: 39041375 PMCID: PMC11264320 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015626] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/24/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria A Willis
- Department of General, Visceral, Thorax and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Ingrid Toews
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Joerg J Meerpohl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Jörg C Kalff
- Department of General, Visceral, Thorax and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Tim O Vilz
- Department of General, Visceral, Thorax and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Song L, Xu WQ, Wei ZQ, Tang G. Robotic vs laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A propensity score matching cohort study and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 16:1280-1290. [PMID: 38817290 PMCID: PMC11135314 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i5.1280] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2023] [Revised: 02/29/2024] [Accepted: 04/10/2024] [Indexed: 05/23/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce. AIM To compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC. METHODS We retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery. RESULTS Of 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in operative time (P = 0.564), intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.314), reoperation rate (P = 0.314), lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.309), or circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate (P = 0.314) between the two groups. The meta-analysis showed patients in the RS group had fewer positive CRMs (P = 0.04), lesser estimated blood loss (P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.02), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) than patients in the LS group. CONCLUSION Our study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Song
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital, Chengdu 610000, Sichuan Province, China
| | - Wen-Qiong Xu
- Department of Nephrology, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital, Chengdu 610000, Sichuan Province, China
| | - Zheng-Qiang Wei
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400000, China
| | - Gang Tang
- Division of Biliary Tract Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Huang Z, Huang S, Huang Y, Luo R, Liang W. Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1273378. [PMID: 37965455 PMCID: PMC10641393 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1273378] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2023] [Accepted: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 11/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS). Materials and methods The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023. Results Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group. Conclusions Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhilong Huang
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China
| | - Shibo Huang
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China
| | - Yanping Huang
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China
| | - Raoshan Luo
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China
| | - Weiming Liang
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Calvo Manuel FÁ, Serrano J, Solé C, Cambeiro M, Palma J, Aristu J, Garcia-Sabrido JL, Cuesta MA, Del Valle E, Lapuente F, Miñana B, Morcillo MÁ, Asencio JM, Pascau J. Clinical feasibility of combining intraoperative electron radiation therapy with minimally invasive surgery: a potential for electron-FLASH clinical development. Clin Transl Oncol 2023; 25:429-439. [PMID: 36169803 PMCID: PMC9873754 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-022-02955-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Accepted: 09/14/2022] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Local cancer therapy by combining real-time surgical exploration and resection with delivery of a single dose of high-energy electron irradiation entails a very precise and effective local therapeutic approach. Integrating the benefits from minimally invasive surgical techniques with the very precise delivery of intraoperative electron irradiation results in an efficient combined modality therapy. METHODS Patients with locally advanced disease, who are candidates for laparoscopic and/or thoracoscopic surgery, received an integrated multimodal management. Preoperative treatment included induction chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation, followed by laparoscopic surgery and intraoperative electron radiation therapy. RESULTS In a period of 5 consecutive years, 125 rectal cancer patients were treated, of which 35% underwent a laparoscopic approach. We found no differences in cancer outcomes and tolerance between the open and laparoscopic groups. Two esophageal cancer patients were treated with IOeRT during thoracoscopic resection, with the resection specimens showing intense downstaging effects. Two oligo-recurrent prostatic cancer patients (isolated nodal progression) had a robotic-assisted surgical resection and post-lymphadenectomy electron boost on the vascular and lateral pelvic wall. CONCLUSIONS Minimally invasive and robotic-assisted surgery is feasible to combine with intraoperative electron radiation therapy and offers a new model explored with electron-FLASH beams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Javier Serrano
- Department of Oncology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid-Pamplona, Spain
| | - Claudio Solé
- Instituto RadioMedicina, Santiago del Chile, Chile
| | - Mauricio Cambeiro
- Department of Oncology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid-Pamplona, Spain
| | - Jacobo Palma
- Department of Oncology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid-Pamplona, Spain
| | - Javier Aristu
- Department of Oncology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid-Pamplona, Spain
| | | | | | | | - Fernando Lapuente
- Department of Surgery, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Bernardino Miñana
- Department of Urology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Javier Pascau
- Department of Bioengineering and Aerospace Engineering, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Getafe, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Tagliabue F, Burati M, Chiarelli M, Cioffi U, Zago M. Robotic surgery in colon cancer: current evidence and future perspectives – narrative review. Artif Intell Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 2:110-116. [DOI: 10.37126/aige.v2.i4.110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2021] [Revised: 05/14/2021] [Accepted: 08/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
In the last 10 years, surgery has been developing towards minimal invasiveness; therefore, robotic surgery represents the consequent evolution of laparoscopic surgery. Worldwide, surgeons’ performances have been upgraded by the ergonomic developments of robotic systems, leading to several benefits for patients. The introduction into the market of the new Da Vinci Xi system has made it possible to perform all types of surgery on the colon, an in selected cases, to combine interventions in other organs or viscera at the same time. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. From this perspective, single-port robotic colectomy, has reduced the number of robotic ports needed, allowing a better anesthetic outcome and faster recovery. The introduction on the market of new surgical robotic systems from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fulvio Tagliabue
- Department of Emergency and Robotic Surgery, A. Manzoni Hospital–ASST Lecco, Lecco 23900, Italy
| | - Morena Burati
- Department of Emergency and Robotic Surgery, A. Manzoni Hospital–ASST Lecco, Lecco 23900, Italy
| | - Marco Chiarelli
- Department of Emergency and Robotic Surgery, A. Manzoni Hospital–ASST Lecco, Lecco 23900, Italy
| | - Ugo Cioffi
- Department of Surgery, University of Milan, Milano 20122, Italy
| | - Mauro Zago
- Department of Emergency and Robotic Surgery, A. Manzoni Hospital–ASST Lecco, Lecco 23900, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Tang B, Lei X, Ai J, Huang Z, Shi J, Li T. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol 2021; 19:38. [PMID: 33536032 PMCID: PMC7860622 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02128-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2020] [Accepted: 01/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been applied in the clinic for decades; nevertheless, which surgical approach has a lower rate of postoperative complications is still inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative complications within 30 days between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery based on randomized controlled trials. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (until May 2020) that compared robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery were searched through PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc). Data regarding sample size, clinical and demographic characteristics, and postoperative complications within 30 days, including overall postoperative complications, severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III), anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, bleeding, ileus, urinary complications, respiratory complications, conversion to open surgery, unscheduled reoperation, perioperative mortality, and pathological outcomes, were extracted. The results were analyzed using RevMan v5.3. RESULTS Seven randomized controlled trials that included 507 robotic and 516 laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery cases were included. Meta-analysis showed that the overall postoperative complications within 30 days [Z = 1.1, OR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.88-1.57), P = 0.27], severe postoperative complications [Z = 0.22, OR = 1.12, 95% CI (0.41-3.07), P = 0.83], anastomotic leakage [Z = 0.96, OR = 1.27, 95% CI (0.78-2.08), P = 0.34], surgical site infection [Z = 0.18, OR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.61-1.79), P = 0.86], bleeding [Z = 0.19, OR = 0.89, 95% CI (0.27-2.97), P = 0.85], ileus [Z = 1.47, OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.38-1.15), P = 0.14], urinary complications [Z = 0.66, OR = 1.22, 95% CI (0.67-2.22), P = 0.51], respiratory complications [Z = 0.84, OR = 0.64, 95% CI (0.22-1.82), P = 0.40], conversion to open surgery [Z = 1.73, OR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.35-1.07), P = 0.08], unscheduled reoperation [Z = 0.14, OR = 0.91, 95% CI (0.26-3.20), P = 0.89], perioperative mortality [Z = 0.28, OR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.15-4.12), P = 0.78], and pathological outcomes were similar between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgery. CONCLUSION Robotic surgery for rectal cancer was comparable to laparoscopic surgery with respect to postoperative complications within 30 days.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bo Tang
- Nanchang University Medical College, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.,Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China
| | - Xiong Lei
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China
| | - Junhua Ai
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China
| | - Zhixiang Huang
- Nanchang University Medical College, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.,Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China
| | - Jun Shi
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
| | - Taiyuan Li
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gómez Ruiz M, Lainez Escribano M, Cagigas Fernández C, Cristobal Poch L, Santarrufina Martínez S. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2020; 4:646-651. [PMID: 33319154 PMCID: PMC7726686 DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2020] [Revised: 08/24/2020] [Accepted: 08/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated many benefits in general surgery, particularly in colon and rectal procedures. On the other hand, it has some limitations that must be taken into account, especially technical drawback. Robotic surgery has incorporated many improvements to overcome this disadvantage, such as 3D visualization, articulating instruments assisting complex and precise movements. As a result, robotic colorectal surgery shows less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to oral tolerance and initial flatus (particularly associated with "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" protocol), less conversion rate to open surgery, shortened hospital stay, and longer distal margins compared to laparoscopic and open surgery. This approach also shows a shorter learning curve. Some studies suggest that it could decrease perioperatively or 30 days after the intervention's mortality, raise overall survival, reduce wound infection, and improve functional results, while others show no significant difference. However, it lengthens surgical time. Otherwise, the studies included do not show statistically significant changes in the number of resected lymph nodes and anastomotic leaks. Economic costs remain one of the major concerns, although to date there are no large-scale studies that have evaluated this aspect from a global point of view. Robotic surgery represents a qualitative leap in surgical instruments and, although there is no strong evidence in favor of the use of robotic surgery over laparoscopic or open surgery, there is enough evidence to support its use in colorectal surgery, with potential advantages for patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcos Gómez Ruiz
- Colorectal Surgery UnitGeneral Surgery DepartmentMarqués de Valdecilla University HospitalSantanderSpain
- Valdecilla Biomedical Research Institute (IDIVAL)SantanderSpain
| | - Mario Lainez Escribano
- Colorectal Surgery UnitGeneral Surgery DepartmentMarqués de Valdecilla University HospitalSantanderSpain
| | - Carmen Cagigas Fernández
- Colorectal Surgery UnitGeneral Surgery DepartmentMarqués de Valdecilla University HospitalSantanderSpain
- Valdecilla Biomedical Research Institute (IDIVAL)SantanderSpain
| | - Lidia Cristobal Poch
- Colorectal Surgery UnitGeneral Surgery DepartmentMarqués de Valdecilla University HospitalSantanderSpain
- Valdecilla Biomedical Research Institute (IDIVAL)SantanderSpain
| | | |
Collapse
|