Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial

Future direction of total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

Despite therapeutic advancements, disease-free survival and overall survival of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer have not improved in most trials as a result of distant metastases. For treatment decision-making, both long-term oncologic outcomes and impact on quality-of-life indices should be considered (for example, bowel function). Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), comprised of chemotherapy and radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, is now a standard treatment approach in patients with features of high-risk disease to prevent local recurrence and distant metastases. In selected patients who have a clinical complete response, subsequent surgery might be avoided through non-operative management, but patients who do not respond to TNT have a poor prognosis. Refined molecular characterization might help to predict which patients would benefit from TNT and non-operative management. Specifically, integrated analysis of spatiotemporal multi-omics using artificial intelligence and machine learning is promising. Three prospective trials of TNT and non-operative management in Japan, the USA and Germany are collaborating to better understand drivers of response to TNT. Here, we address the future direction for TNT.

Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine if minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer is non-inferior to open surgery (OPEN) regarding adequacy of cancer resection in a population based setting.

METHODS

All 9,464 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer 2012-2018 who underwent curative surgery were included from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM < 1 mm) and positive resection margin (R1). Non-inferiority margins used were 2.4% and 4%.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

30- and 90-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, re-operation < 30 days, 30- and 90-day re-admission, length of stay (LOS), distal resection margin < 1 mm and < 12 resected lymph nodes. Analyses were performed by intention-to-treat using unweighted and weighted multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

The CRM was positive in 3.8% of the MIS group and 5.4% of the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.623, -1.622). R1 was recorded in 2.8% of patients in the MIS group and in 4.4% of patients in the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.649, -1.633). There were no differences between the groups in adjusted unweighted and weighted analyses. All analyses demonstrated decreased mortality and re-admissions at 30 and 90 days as well as shorter LOS following MIS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population based setting MIS for rectal cancer was non-inferior to OPEN regarding adequacy of cancer resection with favorable short-term outcomes.

Efficiency of the Robotic Platform in Improving the Rate of Sphincter Preservation in Patients With Mid and Low Rectal Cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the robotic platform can have a positive impact on the rate of sphincter preservation in patients with rectal tumors, undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), in comparison with laparoscopic or open TME. We also analyzed and compared short-term outcomes.

Methods

A prospectively collected robotic database was reviewed and compared with the trust and national data. Three groups were designed according to the surgical technique: open, laparoscopic and robotic. This includes all resections for mid and low rectal cancer which were performed with the robotic platform, over a period of 4 years, versus the trust data for the same period.

Results

Two hundred ninety-seven patients with mid and low rectal cancers were analyzed. Demographics for the groups (gender, age, and body mass index) were similar but distance from anal verge was shorter in the robotic group (7 vs. 8.5 cm, P < 0.001). The percentage of abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate was significantly lower in the robotic group (13.5% vs. 39.6% vs. 52.4% for the open group, P < 0.001). Median length of stay, complication rate, and positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate for the robotic group were also statistically significantly lower than those for both laparoscopic and open groups.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer is safe and feasible, and could help surgeons perform ultra-low anterior resections, rather than APRs and save patients' sphincters. Positive CRM is low, which could lead to improved oncological outcomes.

Possible Advantages of Minimal-Invasive Approaches in Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis

(1) Background: Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer was introduced in the early 1990s; the aim of this analysis was to show possible advantages of minimal-invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery. (2) Methods: From 2016 to 2020, all patients undergoing open, laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery in Germany were retrospectively analyzed regarding sex distribution, conversion rates and in-hospital mortality rates according to nationwide hospital billing data based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). (3) Results: In total, 68,112 patients were analyzed, and most commonly, low anterior rectal resections with primary anastomosis (n = 25,824) were performed with an increase of minimal-invasive procedures over the years (open: 51% to 27%; laparoscopic: 47% to 63% and robotic: 2% to 10%). In-hospital mortality rate was 2.95% (n = 2012). In total, 4.61%, 1.77%, 1.14% and 3.95% of patients with open, laparoscopic, robotic and converted-to-open surgery died during hospital stay, respectively (open vs. laparoscopic p < 0.0001; open vs. robotic p < 0.00001; laparoscopic vs. robotic p = 0.001). Conversion rates were significantly more favorable in the robotic compared to the laparoscopic group. (11.94% vs. 2.53%; p < 0.0001). (4) Conclusion: Minimal-invasive rectal cancer surgery might have some advantages in terms of a reduced in-hospital mortality, and an improved conversion rate for the robotic approach.

The RECOURSE Study: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes Associated With Robotically Assisted Minimally Invasive Procedures for Endometrial, Cervical, Colorectal, Lung, or Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers.

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery provides perioperative benefits and similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. Recent robotic surgery data have questioned long-term benefits.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer outcomes based on surgical approach was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase. Hazard ratios for recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted/estimated using a hierarchical decision tree and pooled in RevMan 5.4 using inverse-variance fixed-effect (heterogeneity nonsignificant) or random effect models.

RESULTS

Of 31,204 references, 199 were included (7 randomized, 23 database, 15 prospective, 154 retrospective studies)-157,876 robotic, 68,007 laparoscopic/thoracoscopic, and 234,649 open cases. Cervical cancer: OS and DFS were similar between robotic and laparoscopic [1.01 (0.56, 1.80), P =0.98] or open [1.18 (0.99, 1.41), P =0.06] surgery; 2 papers reported less recurrence with open surgery [2.30 (1.32, 4.01), P =0.003]. Endometrial cancer: the only significant result favored robotic over open surgery [OS; 0.77 (0.71, 0.83), P <0.001]. Lobectomy: DFS favored robotic over thoracoscopic surgery [0.74 (0.59, 0.93), P =0.009]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.93 (0.87, 1.00), P =0.04]. Prostatectomy: recurrence was less with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery [0.77 (0.68, 0.87), P <0.0001]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.78 (0.72, 0.85), P <0.0001]. Low-anterior resection: OS significantly favored robotic over laparoscopic [0.76 (0.63, 0.91), P =0.004] and open surgery [0.83 (0.74, 0.93), P =0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes were similar for robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery, with no safety signal or indication requiring further research (PROSPERO Reg#CRD42021240519).

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND

The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique.

DESIGN

This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.

SETTINGS

The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin.

RESULTS

A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group.

LIMITATIONS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS.

ANTECEDENTES

No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica.

OBJETIVO

Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica.

DISEO

Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión.

AJUSTES

El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados.

PACIENTES

Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017.

INTERVENCIONES

Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo.

RESULTADOS

Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo.

LIMITACIONES

Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación.

CONCLUSIONES

La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Brazilian society of surgical oncology: Guidelines for the surgical treatment of mid-low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer in North America, Western Europe, and Brazil, and represents an important public health problem. It is estimated that approximately 30% of all the CRC cases correspond to tumors located in the rectum, requiring complex multidisciplinary treatment. In an effort to provide surgeons who treat rectal cancer with the most current information based on the best evidence in the literature, the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (SBCO) has produced the present guidelines for rectal cancer treatment that is focused on the main topics related to daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The SBCO developed the present guidelines to provide recommendations on the main topics related to the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer based on current scientific evidence.

METHODS

Between May and June 2021, 11 experts in CRC surgery met to develop the guidelines for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer. A total of 22 relevant topics were disseminated among the participants. The methodological quality of a final list with 221 sources was evaluated, all the evidence was examined and revised, and the treatment guideline was formulated by the 11-expert committee. To reach a final consensus, all the topics were reviewed via a videoconference meeting that was attended by all 11 of the experts.

RESULTS

The prepared guidelines contained 22 topics considered to be highly relevant in the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer, covering subjects related to the tests required for staging, surgical technique-related aspects, recommended measures to reduce surgical complications, neoadjuvant strategies, and nonoperative treatments. In addition, a checklist was proposed to summarize the important information and offer an updated tool to assist surgeons who treat rectal cancer provide the best care to their patients.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines summarize concisely the recommendations based on the most current scientific evidence on the most relevant aspects of the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer and are a practical guide that can help surgeons who treat rectal cancer make the best therapeutic decision.

Impact of Surgical Approach on Surgical Resection Quality in Mid- and Low Rectal Cancer, A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Aim

To evaluate the evidence concerning the quality of surgical resection in laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RobTME) and transanal (TaTME) total mesorectal excision for mid-/low rectal cancer.

Methods

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was utilized to compare surgical resection involved in these 3 surgical techniques by using ADDIS software. Rates of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) were the primary endpoint.

Results

A total of 34 articles, 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 32 non-RCTs, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data showed CRM positivity in 114 of 1763 LapTME procedures (6.5%), 54 of 1051 RobTME procedures (5.1%) and 60 of 1276 TaTME procedures (4.7%). There was no statistically significant difference among these 3 surgical approaches in terms of CRM involvement rates and all other surgical resection quality outcomes. The incomplete mesorectal excision rates were 9.6% (69/720) in the LapTME group, 1.9% (11/584) in the RobTME group and 5.6% (45/797) in the TaTME group. Pooled network analysis observed a higher but not statistically significant risk of incomplete mesorectum when comparing both LapTME with RobTME (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 0.48-11.17) and LapTME with TaTME (OR = 1.90; 95% CI = 0.99-5.25). By comparison, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best or second best in terms of CRM involvement, complete mesorectal excision, rate of distal resection margin (DRM) involvement and length of DRMs. In addition, RobTME achieved a greater mean tumor distance to the CRM than TaTME. It is worth noting that TaTME was most likely to be ranked the worst in terms of CRM involvement for intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer.

Conclusion

Overall, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best in terms of the quality of surgical resection for the treatment of mid-/low rectal cancer. TaTME should be performed with caution in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

Minimal access rectal cancer surgery: an observational study of patient outcomes from a district general hospital with over a decade of experience with robotic rectal cancer surgery

AIM

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer has become established more slowly than in other specialities. The aim of this study was to assess the risks and benefits of the use of robotic rectal cancer surgery in comparison with laparoscopic surgery within the confines of a subspecialist rectal cancer service in a district general hospital.

METHOD

Outcomes from consecutive patients undergoing minimal access rectal cancer surgery between July 2008 and January 2020 were analysed. Comparisons were made between short-term outcomes including conversion rates, anastomotic leakage and pathological outcomes as well as long-term survival and cancer recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 337 patients were included in the analysis, 204 (60.5%) of whom underwent robotic surgery. Demographic characteristics and use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were similar between groups. However, patients having robotic surgery had significantly lower tumours than in the laparoscopic group (7.6 cm vs. 9.8 cm, p = 0.003). Conversion to open surgery in the robotic group was significantly less likely (9.8% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.001). Operative mortality, clinical leakage and major complications were similar between groups. While asymptomatic 'radiological' leaks were significantly more common following robotic surgery (13.7% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.017) this did not affect the long-term stoma closure rate. Pathological outcomes were similar with the exception of shorter mean distal resection margins (25.9 mm vs. 32.8 mm, p = 0.001) for the robotic group of patients. There was no statistical difference in 5-year survival between groups (78.7% robotic vs. 85.4% laparoscopic, p = 0.263) nor local recurrence (2.0% robotic vs. 3.8% laparoscopic, p = 0.253).

CONCLUSIONS

These results illustrate how the selective use of robotic surgery by a dedicated rectal cancer team can achieve low rates of cancer recurrence and low permanent stoma rates.

Single-docking robotic assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer below peritoneal reflection: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of robotic assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic assisted proctectomy (LP) for rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Methods

We evaluated the medical records of 200 patients who underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection through a robotic (n=81) or laparoscopic (n=119) approach between Jan 2015 and Dec 2017. The data were prospectively collected, and the patients were matched at a ratio of 1:1 according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), previous abdominal surgeries, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (≤2/>2), and pathologic stage.

Results

After matching, each group included 74 patients. Compared to the LP group, the RP group showed shorter postoperative hospital stays (PHS) [7 (±2) vs. 9 (±2.3) d, P=0.003], shorter time to liquid diet [3 (±2) vs. 5 (±3) d, P<0.001], and shorter time to removal of catheter [6 (±2) vs. 7 (±2.3) d, p=0.014]. The operative expense was higher in the RP group [8,365 (±1,600) vs. 6,922 (±1,220) RMB, P<0.001]. The operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, and pathologic outcomes were similar between the two groups. No conversion to laparotomy, readmission, or mortality was observed in either group within 30 days after surgery. The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) were 75.2% and 88.3% (P=0.070), and overall survival (OS) were 92.9% and 93.7% (P=0.810) in the RP and the LP groups, respectively and the risk of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) was lower in the RP group (OR =0.304, 95% CI: 0.124–0.745, P=0.009).

Conclusions

Compared to LP, RP is worth recommending as it has long-term survival, faster postoperative recovery, and a lower risk of LARS in patients with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection.

The Micro Hand S vs. da Vinci Surgical Robot-Assisted Surgery on Total Mesorectal Excision: Short-Term Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Objective: To compare the operation mode and clinical short-term outcomes of the Micro Hand S and the da Vinci surgical robot, we chose total mesorectal excision (TME) as the standard procedure for its good reflection of robot-assisted surgery advantages.

Methods: We collected a total of 54 consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted TME by two surgical robots from January 2016 to October 2020. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to create balanced cohorts of Micro Hand S group (n = 14) and da Vinci group (n = 14). Robotic installation and operation time, hospital and surgery costs, and intraoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were compared.

Results: In terms of robotic installation time, the Micro Hand S robot took longer than the da Vinci robot (24.2 ± 9.4 min vs. 17.1 ± 5.1 min, P < 0.05). As for the costs, the Micro Hand S group had lower total hospital costs (87,040.1 ± 24,676.9 yuan vs. 125,292.3 ± 17,706.7 yuan, P < 0.05) and surgery costs (25,772.3 ± 4,117.0 yuan vs. 46,940.9 ± 10,199.7 yuan, P < 0.05) than the da Vinci group. There were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in other indicators, including total operation time, robotic operation time, blood loss, time to first liquid diet, time of getting out of bed, and hospital stay.

Conclusion: The Micro Hand S enables patients with rectal cancer to enjoy lower medical costs of robotic surgery.

Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02752698]

Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A National Perspective on Short-term Outcomes and Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Prior randomized trials showed comparable short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP) for rectal cancer. We hypothesize that short-term outcomes for MIP have improved as surgeons have become more experienced with this technique.

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection (APR) or low anterior resection (LAR) were included from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2016-2018). Patients were stratified based on intent-to-treat protocol: open (O-APR/LAR), laparoscopic (L-APR/LAR), robotic (R-APR/LAR), and hybrid (H-APR/LAR). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the impact of operative approach on 30-day morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 4471 procedures were performed (43.41% APR and 36.59% LAR); O-APR 42.72%, L-APR 20.99%, R-APR 16.79%, and H-APR 19.51%; O-LAR 31.48%, L-LAR 26.34%, R-LAR 17.48%, and H-LAR 24.69%. Robotic APR and LAR were associated with shortest length of stay and significantly lower conversion rate. After adjusting for other factors, lap, robotic and hybrid APR and LAR were associated with decreased risk of overall morbidity when compared to open approach. R-APR and H-APR were associated with decreased risk of serious morbidity. No difference in the risk of serious morbidity was observed between the four LAR groups.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate selection of patients for MIP can result in better short-term outcomes, and consideration for MIP surgery should be made.

Risk factors for suboptimal laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is technically complex. This study aimed to identify risk factors for suboptimal laparoscopic surgery (involved margins, incomplete mesorectal excision, and/or conversion to open surgery) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We included patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer between June 2009 and June 2018. We defined the outcome variable suboptimal laparoscopic surgery as conversion to open surgery or inadequate histopathological specimens (margins < 1 mm or involved and/or poor-quality mesorectal excision). To identify independent predictors of suboptimal laparoscopic surgery, we analyzed 15 prospectively recorded demographic, clinical, and anthropometric variables obtained from our rectal cancer unit's database. Subanalyses examined the same variables with respect to conversion and to inadequate histopathological specimens.

RESULTS

Of the 323 patients included, 91 (28.2%) had suboptimal laparoscopic surgery. In the multivariate analysis, the independent factors associated with all suboptimal laparoscopic surgery were tumor location ≤ 5 cm from the anal verge (OR = 2.95, 0.95% CI 1.32-6.60; p = 0.008) and the intertuberous distance (OR = 0.79, 0.95% CI 0.65-0.96; p = 0.019). In the subanalyses, the promontorium-retropubic axis was an independent predictor of conversion (OR 0.70, 0.95% CI 0.51-0.96; p = 0.026), and tumor location ≤ 5 cm from the anal verge (OR 3.71, 0.95% 1.51-9.15; p = 0.004) was an independent predictor of inadequate histopathological specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive factors for suboptimal laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer were tumor location and the intertuberous distance. These results could help surgeons decide whether to use other surgical approaches in complex cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.org (No. NCT03107650).

Time interval between the completion of radiotherapy and robotic-assisted surgery among patients with stage I-III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

This aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of time interval between the completion of radiotherapy and robotic-assisted surgery on the outcomes among patients with rectal cancer undergoing preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

METHODS

In total, 116 patients with stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent preoperative CCRT and robotic-assisted surgery between September 2013 and February 2019 were enrolled. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the time interval: group A (10-12 weeks) and group B (≥ 12 weeks).

RESULTS

Among the 116 enrolled patients, 98 (84.5%) had middle and lower rectal cancers. Two (1.7%) patients underwent abdominoperineal resection with a sphincter preservation rate of 98.3%. Thirty-seven (31.9%) patients had a pathologic complete response (pCR). The circumferential resection margin and distal resection margin were positive in 2 (1.7%) and 1 (0.9%) patients, respectively. Therefore, the R0 resection rate was 97.4%. A total of 24 (22.4%) patients experienced postoperative relapse and 12 (10.3%) patients died; these were slightly more common in group B than in group A (28.8% vs 15.8% and 15.3% vs 5.3%, respectively; both P > 0.05); however, this difference was nonsignificant. Three-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 75% and 89%, respectively, among all patients. Non-significant trend of favorable 3-year DFS, 3-year OS, 3-year locoregional control rate and 3-year distant metastasis control rate were observed in group A compared with group B (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted surgery after a longer interval is safe and feasible for patients with rectal cancer undergoing preoperative CCRT. The present study's results suggested that the time interval of 10-12 weeks can be considered because comparable clinical and perioperative outcomes and preferable oncological outcomes were observed for interval of this length. However, future prospective randomized clinical trials are required to verify the present finding.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic rectal resection: outcomes and learning curve of the initial 100 cases

Background

Following several landmark trials, laparoscopic rectal resection has reached standard clinical practice. Current literature is undecided on the advantages of robotic rectal resection and little is known on its learning curve. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the first 100 robotic rectal resections to the laparoscopic approach in a teaching hospital experienced in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of a prospective cohort of all consecutive rectal resections between January 2012 and September 2019 at a single center. All laparoscopic cases were compared to the robotic approach. Outcomes included operative time, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay.

Results

Out of the 326 consecutive resections, 100 were performed robotically and 220 laparoscopically, the remaining 6 open cases were excluded. Median operative time was lower for robotic cases (147 (121–167) versus 162 (120–218) minutes P = 0.024). Overall morbidity was lower in robotic cases (25% versus 50%, P < 0.001), while major morbidity was similar. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 11% (8/70) of robotic and 15% (18/120) of laparoscopic anastomoses, despite more anastomoses in the robotic group (70%, 70/100 versus 55%, 120/220, P = 0.001). Median length of stay was 4 (4–7) days after a robotic and 6 (5–9) days after a laparoscopic procedure.

Discussion

Implementation of a robotic rectal resection program in an experienced laparoscopic surgery center was associated with reduced operative time, length of stay, and fewer complications despite a learning curve.

Robotic Colorectal Surgery

The role of robotics in colon and rectal surgery has been established as an important and effective tool for the surgeon. Its inherent technologies have provided for increased visualization and ease of dissection in the minimally invasive approach to surgery. The value of the robot is apparent in the more challenging aspects of colon and rectal procedures, including the intracorporeal anastomosis for right colectomies and the low pelvic dissection for benign and malignant diseases.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been suspended in Norway

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer has emerged as an alternative to the traditional abdominal approach. However, concerns have been raised about local recurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate local recurrence after TaTME. Secondary aims included postoperative mortality, anastomotic leak and stoma rates.

Methods

Data on all patients who underwent TaTME were recorded and compared with those from national cohorts in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry (NCCR) and the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery (NoRGast). Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to compare local recurrence.

Results

In Norway, 157 patients underwent TaTME for rectal cancer between October 2014 and October 2018. Three of seven hospitals abandoned TaTME after a total of five procedures. The local recurrence rate was 12 of 157 (7·6 per cent); eight local recurrences were multifocal or extensive. The estimated local recurrence rate at 2·4 years was 11·6 (95 per cent c.i. 6·6 to 19·9) per cent after TaTME compared with 2·4 (1·4 to 4·3) per cent in the NCCR (P &lt; 0·001). The adjusted hazard ratio was 6·71 (95 per cent c.i. 2·94 to 15·32). Anastomotic leaks resulting in reoperation occurred in 8·4 per cent of patients in the TaTME cohort compared with 4·5 per cent in NoRGast (P = 0·047). Fifty-six patients (35·7 per cent) had a stoma at latest follow-up; 39 (24·8 per cent) were permanent.

Conclusion

Anastomotic leak rates after TaTME were higher than national rates; local recurrence rates and growth patterns were unfavourable.