Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

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.

Urinary and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of the study was to compare the protective effects of robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) on urinary and sexual function of patients. We conducted a systematic search in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies comparing the impact of RRCS and LRCS on urinary function and sexual function. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the Female Sexual Function Index(FSFI) were used to evaluate the urinary function and sexual function of patients. A total of 13 studies comprising 1964 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 3 randomized controlled trials, 5 retrospective cohort studies, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 2 propensity score-matched studies. Nine hundred and fifty-nine patients underwent RRCS and 1005 patients underwent LRCS. Statistical analysis of the IPSS scores indicated urinary function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively [mean difference (MD), - 1.06, 95% CI - 1.85 to - 0.28; and MD, - 0.96, 95% CI - 1.60 to - 0.32; and MD, - 1.09, 95% CI - 1.72 to - 0.46]. Statistical analysis of the IIEF-5 scores indicated male sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 1.76, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.72; and MD, 1.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.33; and MD, 1.05, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.01). Statistical analysis of the FSFI scores indicated female sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 2.86; 95% CI 1.38 to 4.35; and MD, 4.19; 95% CI 1.85 to 6.54). RRCS is more favorable than LRCS in preserving the urinary and sexual function of patients with rectal cancer.

Fluorescence-guided colorectal surgery: applications, clinical results, and protocols

In recent years, the rise of minimally invasive surgery has driven the development of surgical devices. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging is receiving increased attention in colorectal surgery for improved intraoperative visualization and decision-making. ICG, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1959, rapidly binds to plasma proteins and is primarily intravascular. ICG absorption of near-infrared light (750-800 nm) and emission as fluorescence (830 nm) when bound to tissue proteins enhances deep tissue visualization. Applications include assessing anastomotic perfusion, identifying sentinel lymph nodes, and detecting colorectal cancer metastasis. However, standardized protocols and research on clinical outcomes remain limited. This study explores ICG's role, advantages, disadvantages, and potential clinical impact in colorectal surgery.

Single-port versus multiport robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial experiences by case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes

Purpose

The da Vinci single-port (SP) system has been used in various surgical fields, including colorectal surgery. However, limited experience has been reported on its safety and feasibility. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SP robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with multiport (MP) robotic surgery.

Methods

Rectal cancer patients who underwent curative resection in 2020 were reviewed. A total of 43 patients underwent robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), of which 26 (13 in each group, SPTME vs. MPTME) were included in the case-matched cohort for analysis. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and pathological results were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

Median tumor height was similar between the 2 groups (SPTME vs. MPTME: 5.9 cm [range, 2.2-9.6 cm] vs. 6.7 cm [range, 3.4-10.0 cm], P = 0.578). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was equally performed (38.5%). The median estimated blood loss was less (20.0 mL [range, 5.0-20.0 mL] vs. 30.0 mL [range, 20.0-30.0 mL], P = 0.020) and the median hospital stay was shorter (7 days [range, 6-8 days] vs. 8 days [range, 7-9 days], P = 0.055) in the SPTME group. Postoperative complications did not differ (SPTME vs. MPTME: 7.7% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.587). One patient in the SPTME group and 3 in the MPTME group experienced anastomotic leakage.

Conclusion

SP robotic TME showed perioperative outcomes similar to MP robotic TME. The SP robotic system can be considered a surgical option for the treatment of rectal cancer. Further prospective randomized trials with larger cohorts are required.

Global trends and hotspots in research of robotic surgery in oncology: A bibliometric and visual analysis from 2002 to 2021

BACKGROUND

With the development of robotic surgery in the field of oncology, an increasing number of relevant research papers have been published. In order to explore the research hotspots and trends in this field, a bibliometric and visual analysis was performed for the first time.

METHODS

The literature records related to oncology robotic surgery were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection database and imported into the software VOSviewer 1.6.18, CiteSpace 6.1.R3, and the Bibliometric Online Analysis Platform for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6,964 publications, including 5,635 articles and 1,329 reviews, were included in this study. Over the past 20 years, annual publications and citations have experienced rapid growth, particularly in the last two years. The United States was the country with the most publications, while Yonsei University in South Korea was the most productive institution. The Journal of Robotic Surgery and the Journal of Urology were the journals with the most publications and citations, respectively. Mottrie A from Belgium and Ficarra V from Italy were the authors with the highest number of publications and citations, respectively. The keywords "robotic surgical procedure", "laparoscopic surgery", "prostate cancer", "colorectal cancer", "gastric cancer", "resection", "complications classification", "open surgery", "transoral robotic surgery", "pathological outcomes", and "robot-assisted surgery" reflect the research hotspots and trends of oncology robotic surgery.

CONCLUSION

The therapeutic advantages of robotic surgery in oncology are not yet prominent, and further randomized controlled trials with multicenter and large samples are needed to evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery and open surgery in the treatment of tumors from multiple outcome indicators.