Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients' functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients' functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] -0 .15 [- 0.24 to - 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.

Robotic versus laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few available studies that compare the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection compared to laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection (LPLND) in advanced rectal cancer. This meta-analysis aims to compare perioperative outcomes between robotic and LPLND.

METHODS

We performed a systemic literature review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Perioperative parameters were extracted and pooled for analysis. This meta-analysis provided an analysis of heterogeneity and prediction intervals.

RESULTS

Five studies were included: 567 patients divided between 266 robotic and 301 LPLND. Overall operation time was longer in the robotic group than laparoscopic group (difference in means = 67.11, 95% CI [30.80, 103.42], p < 0.001) but the difference in the pelvic lateral lymph dissection time was not statistically significant (difference in means =  - 1.212, 95% CI [ - 11.594, 9.171], p = 0.819). There were fewer overall complications in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (OR = 1.589, 95% CI [1.009, 2.503], p = 0.046), especially with respect to urinary retention (OR = 2.23, 95% CI [1.277, 3.894], p = 0.005). More pelvic lateral lymph nodes were harvested by robotic surgery than by laparoscopy (differences in means =  - 1.992, 95% CI [ - 2.421, 1.563], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection was associated with more pelvic lateral lymph nodes harvested and lower overall complications, especially urinary retention when compared to LPLND. Further studies are needed to reinforce these findings.

Technical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal tumors: a single-center safety and feasibility study

PURPOSE

Robot-assisted surgery has a multi-joint function, which improves manipulation of the deep pelvic region and contributes significantly to perioperative safety. However, the superiority of robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopic surgery remains controversial. This study compared the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included 273 patients with rectal tumors who underwent surgery with anastomosis between 2017 and 2021. In total, 169 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (Lap group), and 104 underwent robot-assisted surgery (Robot group). Postoperative complications were compared via propensity score matching based on inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

The postoperative complication rates based on the Clavien-Dindo classification (Lap vs. Robot group) were as follows: grade ≥ II, 29.0% vs. 19.2%; grade ≥ III, 10.7% vs. 5.8%; anastomotic leakage (AL), 6.5% vs. 4.8%; and urinary dysfunction (UD), 12.1% vs. 3.8%. After adjusting for the IPTW method, although AL rates did not differ significantly between groups, postoperative complications of both grade ≥ II (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.87, p < 0.01) and grade ≥ III (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.53, p < 0.01) were significantly less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group. Furthermore, urinary dysfunction also tended to be less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.00; p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors provides better short-term outcomes than laparoscopic surgery, supporting its use as a safer approach.

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.

Postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer: An updated meta-analysis of recently published studies

BACKGROUND

This is an updated meta-analysis comparing the postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Cochrane central, MEDLNE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), Google Scholar, Web of Science and http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies (published after the year 2015), comparing robotic versus LS for the treatment of rectal cancer. The postoperative outcomes were considered as the endpoints in this analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to carry out the statistical analysis. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the results following data analysis.

RESULTS

A total number of 22,744 participants were included in this study whereby 9178 participants were assigned to the robotic surgery and 13,566 participants were assigned to the LS group. The time period of patients' enrollment varied from years 2007 to 2017. Our results showed that overall complications (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.17; P = .45), wound complications (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64-1.04; P = .09), anastomotic leak (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.88-1.42; P = .37), anastomotic bleeding (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.29-2.64; P = .82), stoma-related complications (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.24-3.21; P = .85), intra-abdominal abscess (RR: 0.53. 95% CI: 0.22-1.31; P = .17), urinary tract infection (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.53-1.66; P = .83), enterocolitis (RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.38-4.71; P = .64), reoperation (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.46-1.54; P = .58), and mortality (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.34-1.62; P = .46) were not significantly different between robotic-assisted versus LS for rectal cancer. Postoperative ileus (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.81-1.81; P = .34), readmission (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.75-1.83; P = .48), and urinary retention (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.21-1.23; P = .14) were also similarly manifested.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated meta-analysis, both robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were equally effective for the treatment of rectal cancer. Similar postoperative complications were observed. However, our analysis was restricted only to postoperative outcomes, parameters such as duration of surgery were not taken into consideration.

Operative Approach Does Not Impact Radial Margin Positivity in Distal Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Mesorectal Excision for Cancer of the High Rectum: A Single-Center Study with Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery for partial mesorectal excision (PME) in patients with high rectal cancer (RC) remains unexplored. This study aimed to compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of robotic (R-PME) versus laparoscopic (L-PME) PME for high RC.

METHODS

This was a single-center propensity score cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with RC in the high rectum (>10 to 15 cm from the anal verge) who underwent surgery between September 2012 and May 2019.

RESULTS

Of 131 selected patients (50 R-PME and 81 L-PME), 88 were matched using propensity score (44 per group). Operative and postoperative variables were similar between R-PME and L-PME patients, except for operative time (220 min and 190 min, respectively; p < 0.0001). No conversion was needed. Overall morbidity was 15.9%; 4 patients (4.5%) developed anastomotic leakage. The mean hospital stay was 7.25 days for R-PME vs. 7.64 days for L-PME (p = 0.597). R0 resection was achieved in 100% of R-PME and 90.9% of L-PME (p = 0.116). Only 3 patients (1 R-PME, 2 L-PME) received a permanent stoma (p = 1). No group differences were observed for overall or disease-free survival rates at 5 years. The costs of R-PME were significantly higher than those of L-PME.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery can be performed safely for PME in high RC. No difference can be detected between R-PME and L-PME for both short- and long-term outcomes, leaving the choice of the surgical approach to the surgeon's experience. Specific health economic studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for RC.

Artificial Intelligence in Colorectal Cancer Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment. A New Era

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms has permeated the medical field with great success. The widespread use of AI technology in diagnosing and treating several types of cancer, especially colorectal cancer (CRC), is now attracting substantial attention. CRC, which represents the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy in both men and women, is considered a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Our review herein aims to provide in-depth knowledge and analysis of the AI applications in CRC screening, diagnosis, and treatment based on current literature. We also explore the role of recent advances in AI systems regarding medical diagnosis and therapy, with several promising results. CRC is a highly preventable disease, and AI-assisted techniques in routine screening represent a pivotal step in declining incidence rates of this malignancy. So far, computer-aided detection and characterization systems have been developed to increase the detection rate of adenomas. Furthermore, CRC treatment enters a new era with robotic surgery and novel computer-assisted drug delivery techniques. At the same time, healthcare is rapidly moving toward precision or personalized medicine. Machine learning models have the potential to contribute to individual-based cancer care and transform the future of medicine.

Robot-assisted mandibular angle osteotomy using electromagnetic navigation

BACKGROUND

To explore the potential of electromagnetic (EM) navigation technology in the field of robot-assisted surgery, we set up a maxillofacial surgical robotic system (MSRS) guided by an EM navigation tool. Mandibular angle osteotomy was used to analyze the feasibility in confined surgical areas.

METHODS

Model and animal experiments were implemented to validate the system precision. Before the experiment, a customized dental splint was made and then fixed with a standard navigation part. An accurate 3D surgical plan was designed based on the preoperative CT scan. During the experiment, the splint was rigidly mounted on teeth for navigation registration, so the robot could position a specially designed template to guide the accurate osteotomy according to the preoperative plan. For the model experiment, a Coordinate Measuring Machine was used to measure the template's position and angle. For the animal experiment, surgeons completed the surgery by moving a saw along the template, while a postoperative CT scan was carried out to calculate the precision.

RESULTS

All procedures were successfully completed, with no complications in any of the experimental animals. In the model experiment, the accuracy of the navigation position and angle was 0.44±0.19 mm and 3.5°±2.1°, respectively. In the animal experiment, the lateral osteotomy line error was 0.83±0.62 mm, the interior error was 1.06±1.03 mm, and the angle between the actual cutting plane and preoperative planning plane was 5.9°±4.7°.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery with EM navigation resulted feasible in the real operating environment. Moreover, this system's precision could meet clinical needs, while the proposed procedure was safe and easy on animals. Consequently, this approach has the potential to be applied to clinical craniomaxillofacial practice in the near future.

Robotic-Assisted Peripheral Nerve Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

 Robotic-assisted techniques are a tremendous revolution in modern surgery, and the advantages and indications were well discussed in different specialties. However, the use of robotic technique in plastic and reconstructive surgery is still very limited, especially in the field of peripheral nerve reconstruction. This study aims to identify current clinical applications for peripheral nerve reconstruction, and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages to establish potential uses in the future.

METHODS

 A review was conducted in the literatures from PubMed focusing on currently published robotic peripheral nerve intervention techniques. Eligible studies included related animal model, cadaveric and human studies. Reviews on robotic microsurgical technique unrelated to peripheral nerve intervention and non-English articles were excluded. The differences of wound assessment and nerve management between robotic-assisted and conventional approach were compared.

RESULTS

 Total 19 studies including preclinical experimental researches and clinical reports were listed and classified into brachial plexus reconstruction, peripheral nerve tumors management, peripheral nerve decompression or repair, peripheral nerve harvesting, and sympathetic trunk reconstruction. There were three animal studies, four cadaveric studies, eight clinical series, and four studies demonstrating clinical, animal, or cadaveric studies simultaneously. In total 53 clinical cases, only 20 (37.7%) cases were successfully approached with minimal invasive and intervened robotically; 17 (32.1%) cases underwent conventional approach and the nerves were intervened robotically; 12 (22.6%) cases converted to open approach but still intervened the nerve by robot; and 4 (7.5%) cases failed to approach robotically and converted to open surgery entirely.

CONCLUSION

 Robotic-assisted surgery is still in the early stage in peripheral nerve surgery. We believe the use of the robotic system in this field will develop to become popular in the future, especially in the fields that need cooperation with other specialties to provide the solutions for challenging circumstances.

Short-term clinical outcomes of a European training programme for robotic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite there being a considerable amount of published studies on robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) over the last few years, there is a lack of evidence regarding RCS training pathways. This study examines the short-term clinical outcomes of an international RCS training programme (the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery-EARCS).

METHODS

Consecutive cases from 26 European colorectal units who conducted RCS between 2014 and 2018 were included in this study. The baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of cases performed by EARCS delegates during training were analysed and compared with cases performed by EARCS graduates and proctors.

RESULTS

Data from 1130 RCS procedures were collected and classified into three cohort groups (323 training, 626 graduates and 181 proctors). The training cases conversion rate was 2.2% and R1 resection rate was 1.5%. The three groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics with the exception of malignant cases and rectal resections performed. With the exception of operative time, blood loss and hospital stay (training vs. graduate vs. proctor: operative time 302, 265, 255 min, p < 0.001; blood loss 50, 50, 30 ml, p < 0.001; hospital stay 7, 6, 6 days, p = 0.003), all remaining short-term outcomes (conversion, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, complications, R1 resection and lymph node yield) were comparable between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal surgeons learning how to perform RCS under the EARCS-structured training pathway can safely achieve short-term clinical outcomes comparable to their trainers and overcome the learning process in a way that minimises patient harm.

Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute

Surgical techniques have evolved over the past few decades, and minimally invasive surgery has been rapidly adapted to become a preferred operative approach for treating colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain a technical challenge for surgeons to perform laparoscopically, which has prompted the development of robotic platforms. Robotic surgery has been introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. The present article provides an overview of robotic rectal surgery and describes many advances that have been made in the field over the past two decades. More specifically, the introduction of the robotic platform and its benefits, and the limitations of current robotic technology, are discussed. Although the main advantages of robotic surgery over conventional laparoscopy appear to be lower conversion rates and better surgical specimen quality, oncological and functional outcomes appear to be similar to those of other alternatives. Other potential benefits include earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision. Nevertheless, the costs and lack of haptic feedback remain the primary limitations to the widespread use of robotic technology in the field.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Hype or Hope? (Indian Experience)

The primary goal to achieve cure in oncology is to reduce recurrence, maximize disease-free survival, maintain function, and optimize quality of life. Surgery remains the mainstay treatment modality in rectal cancer. The current trend is to perform least invasive method of doing complex surgeries while not compromising in the oncological of functional outcomes of patients. Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery entails removal of the rectum with its fascia as an intact unit while preserving surrounding vital structures. The procedure is technically challenging because of the narrow and deep pelvic cavity housing the rectum encased by fatty lymph vascular tissue within the perirectal fascia, distally the anal sphincter complex, and an intimate surrounded by vital structures like ureter, vessels, and nerves. Robotic technology enables overcoming these difficulties caused by complex pelvic anatomy. This system can facilitate better preservation of the pelvic autonomic nerve and thereby achieve favorable postoperative sexual and voiding functions after rectal cancer surgery. The nerve-preserving TME technique includes identification and preservation of the superior hypogastric plexus nerve, bilateral hypogastric nerves, pelvic plexus, and neurovascular bundles.

Impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has advantages in terms of the ergonomic design and expectations of shortening the learning curve, which may reduce the number of patients with adverse outcomes during a surgeon's learning period. We investigated the differences in the learning curves of robotic surgery and clinical outcomes for rectal cancer among surgeons with differences in their experiences of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic surgery for colorectal cancer were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into five groups by surgeons, and their clinical outcomes were analyzed. The learning curve of each surgeon with different volumes of laparoscopic experience was analyzed using the cumulative sum technique (CUSUM) for operation times, surgical failure (open conversion or anastomosis-related complications), and local failure (positive resection margins or local recurrence within 1 year).

RESULTS

A total of 662 patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer were included in the analysis. Number of laparoscopic LAR cases performed by surgeon A, B, C, D, and E prior to their first case of robotic surgery were 403, 40, 15, 5, and 0 cases, respectively. Based on CUSUM for operation time, surgeon A, B, C, D, and E's learning curve periods were 110, 39, 114, 55, and 23 cases, respectively. There were no significant differences in the surgical and oncological outcomes after robotic LAR among the surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the limited impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery, which was greater than previously reported curves.

Urological and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

This systematic review sought to compare the urogenital functions after laparoscopic (LAP) and robotic (ROB) surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies (n = 2709 for ROB, n = 2720 for LAP) were included. There was a lower risk of 30-day urinary retention in the ROB group (risk ratios 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.99), but the long-term risk was comparable (p = 0.460). Meta-regression showed a small, positive relationship between age and risk of 30-day urinary retention in both the ROB (p = 0.034) and LAP groups (p = 0.004). The International Prostate Symptom Score was better in the ROB group at 3 months (mean difference [MD] -1.58, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.05). The International Index of Erectile Function score was better in the ROB group at 6 months (MD 4.06, 95% CI 2.38 - 5.74).

CONCLUSION

While robotics may improve urogenital function after rectal surgery, the quality of evidence is low based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Short-Term Oncological Outcomes of Initial 178 Cases

Emerging techniques in minimally invasive rectal resection include robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME). The Da Vinci Surgical System offers precise dissection in narrow and deep confined spaces and is gaining increasing acceptance during recent times. The aim of this study is to analyse our initial experience of R-TME with Da Vinci Xi platform in terms of perioperative and oncological outcomes in the context of data from recently published randomised ROLARR trial amongst minimally invasive novice surgeons. Patients who underwent R-TME or tumour specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between May 2016 and November 2019 were identified from a prospectively maintained single institution colorectal database. Demographic, clinical-pathological and short-term oncological outcomes were analysed. Of the 178 patients, 117 (65.7%) and 31 (17.4%) patients had lower and mid third rectal cancer. Most of the tumours were locally advanced, cT3–T4: 138 (77.5%). One hundred/178 (56.2%) underwent sphincter preserving TME. Eighty-seven (48.8%) were grade II adenocarcinoma. Nonmucinous adenocarcinoma was the predominant histology, 138 (78.4%). One hundred one cases (56.7%) were pT3. The mean number of lymph node yield was 13 ± 5. Distal resection margin and circumferential resection margin were positive in 2 (1.12%), 12 cases (6.74%) respectively. Eleven cases (6.7%) had to be converted to open TME. Mean blood loss and duration of surgery was 170 ± 60 ml and 286 ± 45 min respectively. Five percent cases had an anastomotic leak. Grade IIIa–IIIb Clavien Dindo (CD) morbidity score was reported to be in 12 (6.75%) and 10 (5.61%) cases. Median length of hospitalisation was 7 days (range 4–14 days). Perioperative and pathologic outcomes following robotic rectal resection is associated with good short-term oncological outcomes and is safe, effective, and reproducible by a minimally invasive novice surgeon.

Clinical efficacy and quality of life after transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction for the treatment of middle and upper rectal cancer

Background

Laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) avoids extra abdominal extraction incision during colorectal surgery. Some surgeons realized the benefits of NOSE on clinical efficacy. We compared the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic NOSE, laparoscopic non-NOSE and open surgery (OS) for short-term recovery and quality of life (QoL).

Methods

A single randomized controlled trial of NOSE for middle and upper rectal cancer between April 2014 and February 2018. Preoperative and postoperative clinical variables were analyzed and compared between the groups. Preoperative and 6 months postoperative QoL was assessed with the SF-36 QoL questionnaire.

Results

A total of 378 patients were enrolled, 334 patients randomly divided into NOSE group (n=104), non-NOSE group (n=119), OS group (n=111). The NOSE group was superior to the other two groups on the QoL after surgery. The NOSE group had the lowest postoperative VAS score between three groups. The postoperative time for bowel function recovery and the length of hospital stay was statistically significantly different among the three groups, with the NOSE group having the shortest time. The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the NOSE group (12/104, 11.5%) than in the non-NOSE group (20/119, 16.8%), the difference was statistically significant. The Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curve showed no statistically significant difference in the disease-free survival (DFS) rate between the three groups.

Conclusions

Comparing NOSE to non-NOSE and OS, the NOSE had significantly better functional recovery and better QoL. The NOSE group had a significant lower surgical complication rate than the non-NOSE group.

Oncological Outcomes and Quality of Life After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Surgery for rectal cancer has been completely revolutionized thanks to the adoption of new technologies and up-to-date surgical procedures that have been applied to the traditional milestone represented by Total Mesorectal Excision (TME).

The multimodal and multidisciplinary approach, with new technologies increased the patients’ life expectancies; nevertheless, they have placed the surgeon in front of newer issues, represented by both oncological outcomes and the patients’ need of a less destructive surgery and improved quality of life.

In this review we will go through laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME surgery, to show how the correct choice of the most appropriate technique, together with a deep knowledge of oncological principles and pelvic anatomy, is crucial to pursue an optimal cancer treatment. Novel technologies might also help to decrease the patients’ fear of surgery and address important issues such as cosmesis and improved preservation of postoperative functionality.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of elective rectal resection for rectal cancer in adults by robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Technological advantages of robotic surgery favor precise dissection in narrow spaces. However, the evidence base driving recommendations for the use of robotic surgery in rectal cancer primarily hinges on observational data.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (until August 2016) comparing robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Data on the following endpoints were evaluated: circumferential margin status, mesorectal grade, number of lymph nodes harvested, rate of conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, and operative time. Data were summarized as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods.

RESULTS

Five trials were eligible, including 334 robotic and 337 laparoscopic surgery cases. Meta-analysis showed that RS was associated with lower conversion rate (7.3%; 4 studies, 544 participants, RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.97, P = 0.04, I = 0%) and longer operating time (MD 38.43 minutes, 95% CI 31.84-45.01: P < 0.00001) compared with laparoscopic surgery. Perioperative mortality, rate of circumferential margin involvement (2 studies, 489 participants, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39-1.73), and lymph nodes collected (mean 17.4 Lymph Nodes; 5 trials, 674 patients, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.12) were similar. The quality of the evidence was moderate for most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of moderate quality supports that robotic surgery for rectal cancer produces similar perioperative outcomes of oncologic procedure adequacy to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery portraits lower rate of conversion to open surgery, while operating time is significantly longer than by laparoscopic approach.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial: protocol for a parallel cohort trial of outcomes using surgical techniques for total mesorectal excision with low anterior resection in high-risk rectal cancer patients

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard of care for rectal cancer, which can be combined with low anterior resection (LAR) in patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. The narrow pelvic space and difficulties in obtaining adequate exposure make surgery technically challenging. Four techniques are used to perform the surgery: open laparotomy, laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery and transanal surgery. Comparative data for these techniques are required to provide clinical data on the surgical management of rectal cancers.

METHODS

The Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial will be a prospective, observational, case-matched, four-cohort, multicentre trial designed to study TME with LAR using open laparotomy, laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery or transanal surgery in high-surgical-risk patients with mid-to-low non-metastatic rectal cancer. All surgeries will be performed by surgeons experienced in at least one of the techniques. Oncological, morbidity and functional outcomes will be assessed in a composite primary outcome, with success defined as circumferential resection margin ≥ 1 mm, TME Grade III and minimal postoperative morbidity (absence of Clavien-Dindo Grade III-IV complications within 30 days after surgery). Secondary end-points will include the co-primary end-points over the long term (2 years), quality of surgery, quality of life, length of hospital stay, operative time and rate of unplanned conversions.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first trial to study all four surgical techniques currently used for TME with LAR in a specific group of high-risk patients. The knowledge obtained will contribute towards helping physicians determine the advantages of each technique and which may be the most appropriate for their patients.

TME for rectal cancer: consecutive 70 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique-cumulative experience in a single centre

From January 2011 to December 2015, 70 consecutive patients underwent either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic surgery (RS) total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy. Data were prospectically recorded in a dedicated local database including ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results. We enrolled 70 consecutive patients, 35 treated with LS (18 M, 17 F), 35 treated with RS (23 M, 12 F). Median total operative time was 225 min in LS group (IQR 194-255) and 252.5 min for RS group (IQR 214-300). Median first flatus time was 2 days for LS group (IQR 1-3) and 1 day for RS group (IQR 1-2). Stool discharge time (median) was 4 days for LS group (IQR 2-5) and 2 days for RS group (IQR 1-3). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR 7-10) and 7 days in RS group (IQR 5-8). It was not found any statistically significant difference between the two groups when we analyzed the number nodes harvested the postoperative complications. The 30 day mortality was 0% in both two groups. The conversion rate for LS group was 23% (8/35 pts) and that for RS group was 0% (0/35). The RS may overcome technical limitations of LS. In our experience, it is a feasible and safe technique, it achieves better clinical outcomes due to the lower conversion rate compared to LS, although with higher costs.

Current surgical practices of robotic-assisted tissue repair and reconstruction

This paper systematically reviewed and analyzed the recent publications of robotic-assisted surgeries in the field of tissue repair and reconstruction. Surgical robots can elevate skin flap more accurately and shorten the time of tissue harvest. In addition, robotic-assisted surgery has the advantage of minimal tissue trauma and thus forms minimal scar. The utilization of surgical robots reduces the occurrence of complications after oral radical tumor resection while achieving cosmetic sutures. Robotic-assisted radical mastectomy could radically remove invasive breast cancer lesions and achieve breast reconstruction in the first stage through the small incisions in the operation areas. Surgical robots enable precise microvascular anastomosis and reduce tissue edema in the surgical field. Robotic-assisted technology can help appropriately locate the target tissues at different angles during sinus and skull base surgeries and accurately place tissues during urethroplasty. The robotic-assisted technology provides a new platform for surgical innovation in the field of tissue repair and reconstruction. However, the uncertainty in the survival rate after tumor radical surgery, the increase of operating time, and the high costs are barriers for its clinical application in tissue repair and reconstructive surgery. Nevertheless, robotic-assisted technology has already demonstrated an impact on the field of tissue repair and reconstruction in a meaningful way.

Detecting the Interdisciplinary Nature and Topic Hotspots of Robotics in Surgery: Social Network Analysis and Bibliometric Study

Background

With the widespread application of a robot to surgery, growing literature related to robotics in surgery (RS) documents widespread concerns from scientific researchers worldwide. Although such application is helpful to considerably improve the accuracy of surgery, we still lack the understanding of the multidiscipline-crossing status and topic distribution related to RS.

Objective

The aim of this study was to detect the interdisciplinary nature and topic hotspots on RS by analyzing the current publication outputs related to RS.

Methods

The authors collected publications related to RS in the last 21 years, indexed by the Web of Science Core Collection. Various bibliometric methods and tools were used, including literature distribution analysis at the country and institution level and interdisciplinary collaboration analysis in the different periods of time. Co-word analysis was performed based on the keywords with high frequency. The temporal visualization bar presented the evolution of topics over time.

Results

A total of 7732 bibliographic records related to RS were identified. The United States plays a leading role in the publication output related to RS, followed by Italy and Germany. It should be noted that the Yonsei University in South Korea published the highest number of RS-related publications. Furthermore, the interdisciplinary collaboration is uneven; the number of disciplines involved in each paper dropped from the initial 1.60 to the current 1.31. Surgery; Engineering; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging; and Neurosciences and Neurology are the 4 core disciplines in the field of RS, all of which have extensive cooperation with other disciplines. The distribution of topic hotspots is in imbalanced status, which can be categorized into 7 clusters. Moreover, 3 areas about the evolution of topic were identified, namely (1) the exploration of techniques that make RS implemented, (2) rapid development of robotic systems and related applications in surgery, and (3) application of a robot to excision of tissues or organs targeted at various specific diseases.

Conclusions

This study provided important insights into the interdisciplinary nature related to RS, which indicates that the researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds should strengthen cooperation to publish a high-quality output. The research topic hotspots related to RS are relatively scattered, which has begun to turn to the application of RS targeted at specific diseases. Our study is helpful to provide a potential guide to the direction of the field of RS for future research in the field of RS.

The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the growth in laparoscopic surgery, comparable oncological outcomes, and reduced complication rates, the majority of colorectal surgery is still performed via an open approach. Reasons for this may include technical difficulties associated with operating in narrow spaces such as in the pelvis and inadequate experience. Robotic surgery provides potential solutions to some of these challenges. This review will summarize the state of the literature regarding robotic colorectal surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most consistent benefit of robotic surgery is decreasing operative conversions, specifically in rectal cancer. In partial colectomies, there is evidence to support quicker return to bowel function. Oncologic outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach are equivalent. Robotic surgery provides solutions to the challenges posed by laparoscopy, including wristed instruments, ease of intracorporeal suturing, and ergonomic advantages. Randomized trials to evaluate peri-operative outcomes will be important. If robotics is able to facilitate conversion of open colectomies to their minimally invasive equivalent, robotics may end up proving to be advantageous in the peri-operative and post-operative period. Continued studies are warranted.

Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Few studies have compared robotic and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) in rectal cancer. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of recently published studies to compare perioperative outcomes of ISR for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic ISR in patients with low rectal cancer. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Perioperative outcomes of interest included the rate of diverting stoma, open conversion rate, operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, and time to initiate the postoperative diet. Oncological outcomes included the number of retrieved lymph nodes, distal resection margin, proximal resection margin, circumferential resection margin, 3-year overall survival, 3-year disease-free survival, and local recurrence. Postoperative complications included overall complications, a Dindo-Clavien classification ≥ III, and anastomotic leakage. All outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

We included 5 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 510 patients undergoing 273 (53.5%) robotic ISR procedures and 237 (46.5%) laparoscopic ISR procedures. The robotic ISR group lower conversion rate, lower blood loss, and longer operation times than the laparoscopic group. We also noted that fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the robotic ISR group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Other outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic and laparoscopic ISR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and 3-year oncologic outcomes; however, robotic ISR was associated with a lower conversion rate and less blood loss despite longer operation times compared to laparoscopic ISR. These findings suggest that robotic ISR maybe a safe and effective technique for treating low rectal cancer in selected patients. The potential oncologic and functional benefits of robotic ISR should be evaluated in larger randomized controlled trials.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach-report of a single-center experience

AIM

Robotic surgery allows for a better visualization and more precise dissection especially in the narrow male pelvis and mid and lower third of the rectum. However, superiority to laparoscopic TME has yet to be proven. We therefore analyzed short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, 44 robotic (RTME) and 41 laparoscopic (LTME) low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision were performed at a single institution. Specimen quality was assessed and reported by an independent pathologist following international guidelines.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly regarding gender, age, ASA stage, BMI, and distance of the lower tumor margin from the anal verge. More patients in the RTME group underwent preoperative chemoradiation (43.2 vs. 19.5%, p = 0.019). The quality of the TME specimen was significantly better in the RTME group (complete/nearly complete/incomplete for RTME 97/0/3% and for LTME 78/17/5%, p = 0.03). The conversion rate tended to be lower in the RTME group (7 vs. 17%, p = 0.143). There was no difference in CRM positivity between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is safe and can improve the quality of TME for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopy. Any effect on long-term survival remains to be established.

Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current state and future perspective

Interest in minimally invasive surgery has increased in recent decades. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) was introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. RALS has the potential to provide better clinical outcomes in rectal cancer surgery, allowing for precise dissection in the narrow pelvic space. In addition, RALS represents an important advancement in surgical education with respect to use of the dual-console robotic surgery system. Because the public health insurance systems in Japan have covered the cost of RALS for rectal cancer since April 2018, RALS has been attracting increasingly more attention. Although no overall robust evidence has yet shown that RALS is superior to laparoscopic or open surgery, the current evidence supports the notion that technically demanding subgroups (patients with obesity, male patients, and patients treated by extended procedures) may benefit from RALS. Technological innovation is a constantly evolving field. Several companies have been developing new robotic systems that incorporate new technology. This competition among companies in the development of such systems is anticipated to lead to further improvements in patient outcomes as well as drive down the cost of RALS, which is one main concern of this new technique.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis

Background

Urogenital dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery can largely affect patients’ postoperative quality of life. Whether robotic surgery can be a better option when comparing with laparoscopic surgery is still not well-known.

Methods

Comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials was conducted to identify relevant studies in March 2018. Studies comparing robotic surgery with laparoscopic surgery were included. Measurement of urogenital function was through the International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function.

Results

Six studies with 386 patients in robotic group and 421 patients in laparoscopic group were finally included. Pooled analysis indicated that bladder function was better at 12 months in the robotic group after the procedures (mean difference, − 0.30, 95% CI, − 0.52 to − 0.08). No significant difference was found at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (mean difference, − 0.37, 95% CI, − 1.48 to 0.73; mean difference, − 1.21, 95% CI, − 2.69 to 0.28). Sexual function was better at 3 months in the robotic group after surgery (mean difference, − 3.28, 95% CI, − 6.08 to − 0.49) and not significantly different at 6 and 12 months. (mean difference, 3.78, 95% CI, − 7.37 to 14.93; mean difference, − 2.82, 95% CI, − 8.43 to 2.80).

Conclusion

Robotic surgery may offer faster recovery in urogenital function compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Approach for Rectal Cancer Surgery, First Egyptian Academic Center Experience, RCT

Background

Undoubtedly, robotic systems have largely penetrated the surgical field. For any new operative approach to become an accepted alternative to conventional methods, it must be proved safe and result in comparable outcomes. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term operative as well as oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal cancer resections.

Methods

This is a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted on patients with rectal cancer undergoing either robotic-assisted or laparoscopic surgery from April 2015 till February 2017. Patients' demographics, operative parameters, and short-term clinical and oncological outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Fifty-seven patients underwent permuted block randomization. Of these patients, 28 were assigned to undergo robotic-assisted rectal surgery and 29 to laparoscopic rectal surgery. After exclusion of 12 patients following randomization, 45 patients were included in the analysis. No significant differences exist between both groups in terms of age, gender, BMI, ASA score, clinical stage, and rate of receiving upfront chemoradiation. Estimated blood loss was evidently lower in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (median: 200 versus 325 ml, p= 0.050). A significantly more distal margin is achieved in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (median: 2.8 versus 1.8, p< 0.001). Although the circumferential radial margin (CRM) was complete in 18 patients (85.7%) in the robotic group in contrast to 15 patients (62.5%) in the laparoscopic group, it did not differ statistically (p=0.079). The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first prospective randomized trial of robotic rectal surgery in the Middle East and Northern Africa region. Our early experience indicates that robotic rectal surgery is a feasible and safe procedure. It is not inferior to standard laparoscopy in terms of oncologic radicality and surgical complications. Organization number is IORG0003381. IRB number is IRB00004025.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese patients is technically challenging. The technological advantages of robotic instruments can help overcome some of those challenges, but whether this translates to superior short-term outcomes is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of obese (BMI ≥ 30) robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery patients.

METHODS

All consecutive obese patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection surgery from three centres, two from the UK and one from Portugal, between 2006 and 2017 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and pathological T stage. Their short-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were identified (63 robotic, 159 laparoscopic). The 63 patients who received robotic surgery were matched with 61 laparoscopic patients. Cohort characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the robotic group, operative time was longer (260 vs 215 min; p = 0.000), but length of stay was shorter (6 vs 8 days; p = 0.014), and thirty-day readmission rate was lower (6.3% vs 19.7%; p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study population, robotic rectal surgery in obese patients resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower 30-day readmission rate but longer operative time when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Robotic rectal surgery in the obese may be associated with a quicker post-operative recovery and reduced morbidity profile. Larger-scale multi-centre prospective observational studies are required to validate these results.

Comparison of guidelines for the management of rectal cancer

A comparison between NCCN, ESMO and JSCCR Guidelines is presented, concerning the treatment of rectal cancer, with an analysis and discussion of their discrepancies. Differences indicate areas for research.

Comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs. open abdominoperineal resection in terms of operative and initial oncological outcomes

Purpose

The present study aimed to objectively evaluate robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection (APR) in comparison with open APR, in terms of operative elements and initial oncological outcomes.

Methods

A total of 118 patients with lower rectal adenocarcinoma who had undergone curative APR were consecutively enrolled between June 2010 and June 2016, i.e., robot-assisted group (n = 40) and open group (n = 78).

Results

Transabdominal extralevator muscle excision was more frequently performed in the robot-assisted group than in the open group (68% vs. 42%, P = 0.012). In the robot-assisted group, the pain score at one day after surgery was less than in the open group, and the resumption of bowel function was earlier (P = 0.043 and P = 0.002, respectively). The occurrence of circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM+) was more than 5 times greater in the open group than in the robot-assisted group, presenting a marginal significance (P = 0.057). Although important postoperative morbidity did not generally differ between the 2 groups, voiding difficulty and male sexual dysfunction appeared to be encountered more frequently in the open group than in the robot-assisted group.

Conclusion

The robot-assisted APR facilitated transabdominal extralevator excision and bowel recovery and demonstrated a trend towards reduced CRM+.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance

This review provides a comprehensive comparison of treatment outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) based on randomly-controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives

We employed RCTs to provide a systematic review that will enable the relevant community to weigh the effectiveness and efficacy of surgical robotics in controversial fields on surgical procedures both overall and on each individual surgical procedure.

Evidence review

A search was conducted for RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1981 to 2016. Among a total of 1,517 articles, 27 clinical reports with a mean sample size of 65 patients per report (32.7 patients who underwent RLS and 32.5 who underwent CLS), met the inclusion criteria.

Findings

CLS shows significant advantages in total operative time, net operative time, total complication rate, and operative cost (p < 0.05 in all cases), whereas the estimated blood loss was less in RLS (p < 0.05). As subgroup analyses, conversion rate on colectomy and length of hospital stay on hysterectomy statistically favors RLS (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Despite higher operative cost, RLS does not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favorable with CLS.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected.

METHODS

Review of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms.

RESULTS

Advocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants.

CONCLUSIONS

While technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

A Systematic Review of the Role of Robotics in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery-From Inception to the Future

Background

The use of robots in surgery has become commonplace in many specialties. In this systematic review, we report on the current uses of robotics in plastic and reconstructive surgery and looks to future roles for robotics in this arena.

Methods

A systematic literature search of Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus was performed using appropriate search terms in order to identify all applications of robot-assistance in plastic and reconstructive surgery. All articles were reviewed by two authors and a qualitative synthesis performed of those articles that met the inclusion criteria. The systematic review and results were conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

A total of 7,904 articles were identified for title and abstract review. Sixty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Robotic assistance in plastic and reconstructive surgery is still in its infancy, with areas such as trans-oral robotic surgery and microvascular procedures the dominant areas of interest currently. A number of benefits have been shown over conventional open surgery, such as improved access and greater dexterity; however, these must be balanced against disadvantages such as the lack of haptic feedback and cost implications.

Conclusion

The feasibility of robotic plastic surgery has been demonstrated in several specific indications. As technology, knowledge, and skills in this area improve, these techniques have the potential to contribute positively to patient and provider experience and outcomes.

Retrorectal Tumors: A Comprehensive Literature Review

IMPORTANCE

Retrorectal tumors are rare lesions that comprise a multitude of histologic types. Reports are limited to small single-institution case series, and recommendations on the ideal surgical approaches are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to provide a comprehensive review of the epidemiology, pathologic subtypes, surgical approaches, and clinical outcomes of retrorectal tumors.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We conducted a review of the literature using PubMed and searched the reference lists of published studies.

RESULTS

A total of 341 studies comprising 1708 patients were included. Overall, 68 % of patients were female. The mean age was 44.6 ± 13.7 years. Of all patients, 1194 (70 %) had benign lesions, and 514 patients (30 %) had malignant tumors. Congenital tumors (60.5 %) were the most frequent histologic type. Other pathologic types were neurogenic tumors (14.8 %), osseous tumors (3.1 %), inflammatory tumors (2.6 %), and miscellaneous tumors (19.1 %). Biopsy was performed in 27 % of the patients. Of these patients, incorrect diagnoses occurred in 44 %. An anterior surgical approach (AA) was performed in 299 patients (35 %); a posterior approach (PA) was performed in 443 (52 %), and a combined approach (CA) was performed in 119 patients (14 %). The mean length of stay (LOS) of PA was 7 ± 5 days compared to 8 ± 7 days for AA and 11 ± 7 days for CA (p < 0.05). The overall morbidity rate was 13.2 %: 19.3 % associated with anterior approach, 7.2 % associated with posterior approach, and 24.7 % after a combined approach (p < 0.05). Overall postoperative recurrence rate was 21.6 %; 6.7 % after an anterior approach, 26.6 % after a posterior approach, and 28.6 % after a combined approach (p < 0.05). A minimally invasive approach (MIS) was employed in 83 patients. MIS provided shorter hospital stays than open surgery (4 ± 2 vs. 9 ± 7 days; p < 0.05). Differences in complication rate were 19.8 % in MIS and 12.2 % in open surgery and not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Retrorectal tumors are most commonly benign in etiology, of a congenital nature, and have a female predominance. Complete surgical resection is the cornerstone of retrorectal tumor management. A minimal access surgery approach, when feasible, appears to be a safe option for the management of retrorectal tumors, with shorter operative time and length of stay.

Novel anal sphincter saving procedure with partial excision of levator-ani muscle in rectal cancer invading ipsilateral pelvic floor

Purpose

Tumors at the level of the anorectal junction had required total levator-ani muscle excision to achieve an adequate resection margin. However, in the cases of tumor invading ipsilateral levator-ani muscle and intact external sphincter, en bloc resection of rectum with levator-ani muscle including tumor would be possible. This hemilevator excision (HLE) technique enables preserving the anal sphincter function while obtaining oncologic clearance and avoiding permanent colostomy in those patients. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes and feasibility of HLE.

Methods

Data on 13 consecutive patients who underwent HLE for pathologically proven low rectal cancer were retrospectively collected. All 13 patients presented low rectal cancer at the anorectal ring level that was suspected to invade or abut to the ipsilateral side of the levator-ani muscle.

Results

A secure resection margin was achieved in all cases, and anastomotic leakage occurred in 2 patients. During follow-up, 3 patients experienced tumor recurrence (2 systemic and 1 local). Among 6 patients who underwent diverting ileostomy closure after the index operation, 2 complained of fecal incontinence. The other 4 patients without fecal incontinence showed <10 times of bowel movement per day. Accessing their incontinence scale, mean Wexner score was 9.4.

Conclusion

HLE is a novel sphincter-preserving technique that can be a treatment option for low rectal cancer invading ipsilateral levator-ani muscle, which has been an indication for abdominoperineal resection (APR) or extralevator APR. However, the long-term oncologic and functional outcomes of this procedure still need to be assessed to confirm its validity.

Robotic versus thoracoscopic lung resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic video-assisted surgery (RVATS) has been reported to be equally effective to video-assisted surgery (VATS) in lung resection (pneumonectomy, lobectomy, and segmentectomy). Operation time, mortality, drainage duration, and length of hospitalization of patients undergoing either RVATS or VATS are compared in this meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic research for articles meeting our inclusion criteria was performed using the PubMed database. Articles published from January 2011 to January 2016 were included. We used results of reported mortality, operation time, drainage duration, and hospitalization length for performing this meta-analysis. Mean difference and logarithmic odds ratio were used as summary statistics.

RESULTS

Ten studies eligible were included into this analysis (5 studies for operation time, 3 studies for chest in tube days, 4 studies for length of hospitalization, and 6 studies for mortality). We were able to include 3375 subjects for RVATS and 58,683 subjects for VATS. Patients were mainly treated for lung cancer, metastatic foci, and benign lesions. We could not detect any difference between operation time; however, we found 2 trends showing that drainage duration and length of hospitalization are shorter for following RVATS than for following VATS. Mortality also is lower in patients undergoing RVATS.

CONCLUSIONS

Therefore, we conclude that RVATS is a suitable minimal-invasive procedure for lung resection and suitable alternative to VATS. RVATS is as time-efficient as VATS and shows a trend to reduced hospital stay and drainage duration. More and better studies are required to provide reliable, unbiased evidence regarding the relative benefits of both methods.

Robotic versus thoracoscopic thymectomy: The current evidence

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to analyze all relevant comparative studies comparing robot-assisted minimally invasive thymectomy (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery thymectomy (VATS) in terms of surgical and short-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles describing robot-assisted and video-assisted thymectomy and addressing surgical outcomes, operation time, length of hospitalization, intra-operative blood loss, conversion to sternotomy and post-operative complications was performed using the medical databases.

RESULTS

Of the 478 studies from preliminary screening, five articles were included. By pooling these studies, we found no significant differences between the RATS and VATS (odds ratio 1.24 (95% CI 0.51, 3.03; p = 0.63)).There were no significant differences in comparison of conversion rates, operation time (26.29 min (95% CI -2.57, 55.35; p = 0.07)) and length of hospitalization (-1.58 days (95% CI -4.78, 1.62; p = 0.33)). There was a slightly higher blood loss in the RATS group.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis did not detect any statistically significant differences in surgery outcomes between the two groups.

Thymectomy via open surgery or robotic video assisted thoracic surgery: Can a recommendation already be made?

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RVATS) is a relatively new technique applied for thymectomies. Only few studies directly compare RVATS to the mainstay therapy, open surgery (sternotomy).

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was performed in October 2016. The meta-analysis includes studies comparing robotassisted and open thymectomy regarding operation time, length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, and chest-in-tube days, postoperative complications, reoperation, arrhythmic events, pleural effusion, and postoperative bleeding.

RESULTS

Of 626 studies preliminary screened, 7 articles were included. There were no significant differences in comparison of operation time (-3.19 minutes [95% confidence interval, 95% CI -112.43 to 106.05]; P = .94), but patients undergoing RVATS spent significantly less time in hospital (-4.06 days [95% CI -7.98 to -0.13], P = .046). There were fewer chests-in-tube days (-2.50 days [95% CI -15.01 to 10.01]; P = .24) and less intraoperative blood loss (-256.84 mL [95% CI -627.47 to 113.80]; P = .10) observed in the RVATS group; due to a small number of studies, these results were not statistically significant. There were also less post-operative complications in the RVATS group (12 complications in 209 patients vs 51 complications in 259 patients); however, this difference was not statistical significant (odds ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-1.12; P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing RVATS spent less time in hospital than patients treated by open surgery (sternotomy). These patients tended to have less postoperative complications, less intraoperative blood loss, and fewer chest-in-tube days. We found evidence for the safety and feasibility of RVATS compared with open surgery, which has to be further confirmed in randomised controlled trials.