Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial

The severity of postoperative complications after robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

OBJECTIVE

Robotic surgery (RS) has been increasingly used for the resection of rectal cancer, and its advantages over laparoscopic surgery (LS) have been demonstrated. However, few studies focused on the severity of postoperative complications. This study aimed to compared the postoperative complications within 30 days after RS over LS according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification.

METHODS

A literature research of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically performed. The studies comparing the complications of RS and LS for rectal cancer based on the C-D classification were enrolled. Primary outcomes were C-D grade III, IV, V, III-V (severe complications).

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (3193 patients) were included in the final analysis: 1554 underwent RS and 1639 underwent LS. The RS group was associated with significantly lower rates of severe complications (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90, P = 0.005), C-D grade IV (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90, P = 0.005), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.91, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in C-D grade III, C-D grade I, II, I-II (minor complications), overall complications, bleeding, wound complications, postoperative ileus, urinary retention, readmission, reoperation between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is safe for rectal cancer and may be an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery, with lower rates of severe complications, C-D grade IV, and anastomotic leak. Further large randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this conclusion.

Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: a cohort study examining clinical outcomes and cost

Objective The aim of this study was to compare robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal operations for clinical outcomes, safety and cost. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed of 213 elective colorectal operations (59 robotic, 154 laparoscopic), matched by surgeon and operation type. Results No differences in age, body mass index, median American Society of Anesthesiologists score or presence of cancer were observed between the laparoscopic or robotic surgery groups. However, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery were more frequently male (P = 0.004) with earlier T stage tumours (P = 0.02) if cancer present. Procedures took longer in cases of robotic surgery (302 vs 130 min; P < 0.001), and patients in this group were more frequently admitted to intensive care units (P < 0.001). Overall length of stay was longer (7 vs 5 days; P = 0.03) and consumable cost was A$2728 higher per patient in the robotic surgery group. Conclusion Robotic colorectal surgery appears to be safe compared with current laparoscopic techniques, albeit with longer procedure times and overall length of stay, more frequent intensive care admissions and higher consumables cost. What is known about the topic? Robotic surgery is an emerging alternative to traditional laparoscopic approaches in colorectal surgery. International trials suggest the two techniques are equivalent in safety. What does this paper add? This is an original cohort study examining clinical outcomes in Australian colorectal robotic surgery. The data suggest it may be safe, but this paper demonstrates key issues in the implementation and audit of novel surgical technologies in relatively low-volume centres. What are implications for practitioners? In our study, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery at a single centre in Australia had equivalent measured clinical outcomes to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. However, practitioners may counsel patients that robotic procedures are typically longer and more expensive, with a longer overall hospital admission and a higher likelihood of intensive care admission.

Preoperative predictive risk to cancer quality in robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement is widely considered the strongest predictor of local recurrence after TME. This study aimed to determine preoperative factors associated with a higher risk of pathological CRM involvement in robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive adult patients who underwent elective, curative robotic low anterior or abdominoperineal resection with curative intent for primary rectal adenocarcinoma in a tertiary referral cancer center from March 2012 to September 2019. Pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports were reviewed for all the patients. Risk factors for pathological CRM involvement were investigated using Firth's logistic regression and a predictive model based on preoperative radiological features was formulated.

RESULTS

A total of 305 patients were included, and 14 (4.6%) had CRM involvement. Multivariable logistic regression found both T3 >5 mm (OR 6.12, CI 1.35-36.44) and threatened or involved mesorectal fascia (OR 4.54, CI 1.33-17.55) on baseline MRI to be preoperative predictors of pathologic CRM positivity, while anterior location (OR 3.44, CI 0.72-33.13) was significant only on univariate analysis. The predictive model showed good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve >0.80) and predicted a 32% risk of positive CRM if all risk factors were present.

CONCLUSION

Patients with pre-operatively assessed threatened radiological margin, T3 tumors with greater than 5 mm extension and anterior location are at risk for a positive CRM. The predictive model can preoperatively estimate the CRM positivity risk for each patient, allowing surgeons to tailor management to improve oncological outcomes.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.

A comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision: trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved by employing open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LaTME) and robotic (RoTME) approaches but which of these has the best outcome? The aim of present study is to identify the most effective technique for rectal cancer by comparing all outcomes.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared at least two TME strategies were identified by literature search of electronic databases of articles published to June 2018. Network meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis was performed using a frequentist approach with random-effects meta-analysis. Data collection and analysis We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved publications were independently and blindly assessed by two authors.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs with 4882 rectal cancer patients were included in this analysis. The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the cumulative Z-curve crossed either the traditional boundary or the trial sequential monitoring boundaries, suggesting that OpTME resulted in a more complete TME specimen than LaTME (relative risk 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.08). Network meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in the other comparisons. Based on the P score of completeness of the TME specimen and circumferential resection margin positivity, the best technique was OpTME, followed by RoTME and then LaTME. However, this order was reversed when complications and mortality were considered. RoTME led to better lymph node harvest.

CONCLUSIONS

Although OpTME may give better pathological specimens, minimally invasive techniques may have advantages when considering lymph node harvest, complications and mortality. More RCTs are needed to determine which technique actually gives the best chance of survival.

An observational study of patho-oncological outcomes of various surgical methods in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single center analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with or without neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the treatment for rectal cancer (RC). Recently, the use of conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic-assisted surgery (RS) has been on a steady increase cases. However, various oncological outcomes from different surgical approaches are still under investigation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study comprising 300 consecutive RC patients who underwent various techniques of TME (RS, n = 88; LS, n = 37; Open surgery, n = 175) at a single center of real world data to compare the pathological and oncological outcomes, with a median follow-up of 48 months.

RESULTS

Upon multivariate analysis, histologic grade (P = 0.016), and stage (P < 0.001) were the independent factors of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis determined RS, early pathologic stage, negative CRM involvement, and pathologic complete response to be significantly associated with better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (all P < 0.05). Multivariable analyses observed the surgical method (P = 0.037), histologic grade (P = 0.006), and CRM involvement (P = 0.043) were the independent factors of DFS, whereas histologic grade (P = 0.011) and pathologic stage (P = 0.022) were the independent prognostic variables of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined that RS TME is feasible because it has less CRM involvement and better oncological outcomes than the alternatives have. The significant factors influencing CRM and prognosis depended on the histologic grade, tumor depth, and pre-operative CCRT. RS might be an acceptable option owing to the favorable oncological outcomes for patients with RC undergoing TME.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Versus Transanal Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare techniques for rectal cancer resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Different surgical approaches exist for mesorectal excision.

METHODS

Systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials included, reporting on 6237 participants, comparing: open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision. No significant differences identified between treatments in intraoperative morbidity, conversion rate, grade III/IV morbidity, reoperation, anastomotic leak, nodes retrieved, involved distal margin, 5-year overall survival, and locoregional recurrence. Operative blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery compared with open, and with robotic surgery compared with open and laparoscopic. Robotic operative time was longer compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. Laparoscopic operative time was longer compared with open. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in lower overall postoperative morbidity and fewer wound infections compared with open. Robotic surgery had fewer wound infections compared with open. Time to defecation was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic. Hospital stay was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery compared with robotic. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in more incomplete or nearly complete mesorectal excisions compared with open, and in more involved circumferential resection margins compared with transanal. Robotic surgery resulted in longer distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal.

CONCLUSIONS

The different techniques result in comparable perioperative morbidity and long-term survival. The laparoscopic and robotic approaches may improve postoperative recovery, and the open and transanal approaches may improve oncological resection. Technique selection should be based on expected benefits by individual patient.

Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Although several meta-analyses regarding robot-assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) in patients with rectal cancer are constantly being published, meta-analyses considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still rare. It is therefore necessary to conduct an appropriate meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence for clinical decision-making. Databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were used to collect RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of RP and LP. Article search was performed until August 2019. Data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by two reviewers independently, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using R software. Eight RCTs were included involving 999 patients, 495 of them underwent RP and 504 underwent LP. The results showed that the RP group had a longer operative time (P < 0.01), a lower conversion rate (P = 0.03), a longer distance to the distal margin (DDM) (P = 0.001), and a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.02). No significant differences were found in perioperative mortality, complication rates, PRM, number of harvested lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and time to first bowel movement between the two groups. Current evidence suggests that RP is superior to LP in short-term clinical outcomes, which is similar to LP regarding pathological outcomes and has better DDM outcomes. However, the comparison between RP and LP regarding long-term oncology outcomes still require further multi-center and large RCT samples to confirm our evidences.

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness

Robotic surgery is considered as one of the advanced treatment modality of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic rectal surgery has been performed for three decades and its application is gradually expanding along with technology development. It has several technical advantages which include magnified three-dimensional vision, better ergonomics, multiple articulated robotic instruments, and the opportunity to perform remote surgery. The technical benefits of robotic system can help to manipulate more meticulously during technical challenging procedures including total mesorectal excision in narrow pelvis, lateral pelvic node dissection, and intersphincteric resection. It is also reported that robotic rectal surgery have been shown more favorable postoperative functional outcomes. Despite its technical benefits, a majority of studies have been reported that there is rarely clinical or oncologic superiority of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. In addition, robotic rectal surgery showed significantly higher costs than the standard method. Hence, the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery is still questionable. In order for robotic rectal surgery to further develop in the field of minimally invasive surgery, there should be an obvious cost-effective advantages over laparoscopic surgery, and it is crucial that large-scale prospective randomized trials are required. Positive competition of industries in correlation with technological development may gradually reduce the price of the robotic system, and it will be helpful to increase the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery.

Robotic simultaneous resection for colorectal liver metastasis: feasibility for all types of liver resection

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach is increasingly being utilized in simultaneous colorectal and liver resection (SCLR) for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. However, this approach is technically challenging and hence has not been widely adopted. Robotic surgical systems could potentially overcome this problem. We aim to describe the feasibility and outcomes of robotic SCLR for colorectal carcinoma with liver metastasis.

METHODS

The medical records of 12 patients who underwent robotic SCLR for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis between January 2008 and September 2018 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean age was 59 years (range, 37-77 years). The liver resections were comprised of two right hepatectomies, one left hepatectomy, one left lateral sectionectomy, one segmentectomy of S3 and wedge resection (segment 7), one caudate lobectomy, one associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and five wedge resections involving segments 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. The colorectal procedures involved seven low-anterior resections, two anterior resections, two right hemicolectomies, and one left hemicolectomy. The mean operative time was 449 min (range, 135-682 min) with a mean estimated blood loss of 274.3 mL (range, 40-780 mL). The mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (range, 5-28 days). No patients required conversion to laparotomy. Liver resection-related complications were two liver abscesses (Clavien-Dindo classification, one grade II and one grade III) and one case of ascites (grade I), whereas colorectal resection-related complications included one anastomosis leak (grade III) and one superficial wound infection (grade II). There were no deaths reported within 30 days of the procedure. With a mean follow-up duration of 31.5 ± 26.1 months, the overall survival and disease-free survival values were 75.2 and 47.1 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SCLR for colorectal neoplasm with liver metastasis can be performed safely even in cases requiring major liver resections, especially in a specialized center with a well-trained team.

Robotic surgery in colorectal cancer: the way forward or a passing fad

Introduced mainly to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopy, robotic colorectal surgery (CRS) has been touted to provide superior optics, ergonomics, and surgeon autonomy. This technological advancement is nonetheless associated with certain drawbacks, mainly involving its cost and the lack of unequivocal benefit over conventional laparoscopy. In this era of evidence-based medicine, robotic CRS remains predominantly a subject of individual institution case series, retrospective studies, matched comparisons at best, and repeated reviews of the above literature. This article provides a critique of the more contemporary data regarding the use of robotics in colorectal cancer surgery and the controversies surrounding the literature.

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.

Laparoscopic Surgery for Diverticular Fistulas: Outcomes of 111 Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to review our experience with laparoscopic colectomy and fistula resection, evaluate the frequency of conversion to open, and to compare the perioperative courses of the complete laparoscopic and conversion groups.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of 111 consecutive adult patients with diverticular fistulae diagnosed clinically or radiographically over 11 years at a single institution. Five patients were excluded for preoperative comorbidities. The remaining 106 consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy with primary anastomosis. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were collected from the colorectal surgery service database. A retrospective cohort analysis was performed between laparoscopic and converted groups.

RESULTS

Within the group, 47% had colovesical fistulas, followed by colovaginal, coloenteric, colocutaneous, and colocolonic fistulas. The overall conversion rate to laparotomy was 34.7% (n = 37). The most common reason for conversion was dense fibrosis. Mean operative time was similar between groups. Combined postoperative complications occurred in 26.4% of patients (21.4% laparoscopic and 37.8% converted, p = 0.075). Length of stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (5.8 vs 8.1 days, p = 0.014). There were two anastomotic leaks, both in the open group. There were no 30-day mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular fistula is safe, with complication rates comparable to open sigmoid resection. We identify a conversion rate which allows the majority of patients to benefit from minimally invasive procedures.

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.

The 100 most influential manuscripts in robotic surgery: a bibliometric analysis

Since the first robotic assisted surgery in 1985, the number of procedures performed annually has steadily increased. Bibliometric analysis highlights the key studies that have influenced current practice in a field of interest. We use bibliometric analysis to evaluate the 100 most cited manuscripts on robotic surgery and discuss their content and influence on the evolution of the platform. The terms 'robotic surgery,' 'robot assisted surgery' and 'robot-assisted surgery' were used to search Thomson Reuters Web of Science database for full length, English language manuscripts. The top 100 cited manuscripts were analyzed by manuscript type, surgical specialty, first and last author, institution, year and journal of publication. 14,980 manuscripts were returned. Within the top 100 cited manuscripts, the majority featured urological surgery (n = 28), followed by combined results from multiple surgical subspecialties (n = 15) and colorectal surgery (n = 13). The majority of manuscripts featured case series/reports (n = 42), followed by comparative studies (n = 24). The most cited paper authored by Nelson et al. (432 citations) reviewed technological advances in the field. The year and country with the greatest number of publications were 2009 (n = 15) and the USA (n = 68). The Johns Hopkins University published the most top 100 manuscripts (n = 18). The 100 most cited manuscripts reflect the progression of robotic surgery from a basic instrument-holding platform to today's articulated instruments with 3D technology. From feasibility studies to multicenter trials, this analysis demonstrates how robotic assisted surgery has gained acceptance in urological, colorectal, general, cardiothoracic, orthopedic, maxillofacial and neuro surgery.

Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the intestinal function recovery time and other short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) for rectal cancer. This is a retrospective study using a prospectively collected database. Patients’ records were obtained from Gansu Provincial Hospital between July 2015 and October 2017. Eighty patients underwent R-TME, and 116 with the same histopathological stage of the tumor underwent an L-TME. Both operations were performed by the same surgeon, comparing intra- and postoperative outcomes intergroups. The time to the first passage of flatus ( P < 0.001), the time to the first postoperative oral fluid intake ( P < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay ( P < 0.01) of the R-TME group were about three days faster than those in the L-TME group. The rate of conversion to open laparotomy ( P = 0.038) and postoperative urinary retention ( P = 0.016) were significantly lower in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group. Intraoperative blood loss of the R-TME group was more than that of the L-TME group ( P < 0.01).The operation time, number of lymph nodes harvested, and rate of positive circumferential resection margin were similar intergroup. The total cost of the R-TME group was higher than that of the L-TME group, but with a lack of statistical significance (85,623.91 ± 13,310.50 vs 67,356.79 ± 17,107.68 CNY, P = 0.084). The R-TME is safe and effective and has better postoperative short-term outcomes and faster intestinal function recovery time, contrasting with the L-TME. The large, multicenter, prospective studies were needed to validate the advantages of robotic surgery system used in rectal cancer.

Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision: A propensity case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) is expected to have advantages over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME). The aim is to compare the short-term outcomes between initial cases of L-TME and RTME.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among a total of 168 patients assigned to receive either R-TME (n = 84) or L-TME (n = 84), short term outcomes were compared between the groups by 1:1 propensity score matching of eight variables.

RESULTS

The inter-sphincteric resection rate (42.9% vs. 25%; P = 0.006) and operative time (372.4 ± 102.8 vs. 301 ± 53.6, P = 0.000) were significantly greater in R-TME. The conversion rate, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were similar. The anastomotic leak rate and major surgical complications rates were significantly higher in L-TME (9.5% vs. 1.2%; P = 0.016) and (13.1% vs. 4.8%; P = 0.034) respectively.

CONCLUSION

The oncologic quality and short-term outcomes in the two groups were comparable; however, anastomotic leak rates and major complications were significantly lower in R-TME. For experienced laparoscopic surgeons, robotic sphincter-saving TME is associated with lower morbidity when compared with laparoscopic approach.

The oncological and surgical safety of robot-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer: outcomes of a longitudinal prospective cohort study

Background

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS) is a frequently used modality. A new development in minimally invasive surgery is robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACRS).

Methods

Prospectively collected data of 378 consecutive patients who underwent RACRS or LCRS for stage I–III colorectal cancer from Dec 2014 to Oct 2017 were analyzed. Primary outcome was oncological outcome (radical margins, number of retrieved lymph nodes, locoregional recurrence). Secondary outcomes were distant metastases, overall and disease-free survival, operation time, conversion, length of hospital stay, and intra- and post-operative complications.

Results

206 RACRS (129 colon and 77 rectal) and 172 LCRS (138 colon and 34 rectal) procedures were included. Baseline characteristics were similar. Overall median follow-up time was 15 months (0.2–36). Oncological outcome was similar. In colon cancer, radical margins were achieved in 99.3% in RACRS group versus 98.6% in LCRS group (p = 0.60), the average number of harvested lymph nodes was 16 ± 6 versus 18 ± 7 (p = 0.16), and locoregional recurrence rate in 24 months was 3.8% vs 3.8% (p = 0.99), respectively. In rectal cancer, radical margins were achieved in 89.6% in RACRS group versus 94.3% in LCRS group (p = 0.42), the average number of harvested lymph nodes was 16 ± 8 versus 15 ± 4 (p = 0.51), and locoregional recurrence rate in 24 months was 9.5 versus 5.6% (p = 0.42), respectively. Incidence of metastasis, survival rates, operation time, length of hospital stay, and number of severe post-operative complications measured by Clavien–Dindo scores did not differ between RACRS and LCRS groups. Conversion and intra-operative complication rates were significantly lower in the RACRS group as compared to the LCRS group (3% vs 9%, p = 0.008 and 2% vs 8%, p = 0.003, respectively).

Conclusion

RACRS is safe in the treatment of patients with stage I–III colorectal cancer. Oncological outcome did not differ between RACRS and LCRS groups. RACRS had lower conversion and intra-operative complication rates.

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

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence available on the safety as well as effectiveness of robotic resection as compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer was collected. Eligible trials that analyzed probabilistic hazard ratios (HR) for endpoints of interest (including perioperative morbidity) and postoperative complications were included in our review.

RESULTS

A total of six studies were included based on the present inclusion criteria. The pooled data showed that R-TME appeared to have association with remarkable reduction in the postoperative morbidity rate as compared to L-TME. Moreover, R-TME was also linked to lower conversion, decreased lymph node number, and longer operation time compared with L-TME. However, there was no difference in hospital stay, positive range of circumferential resection and blood loss between the two study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic rectal cancer surgery provides favorable outcomes and is considered as a safe surgical technique in terms of postoperative oncological safety. Like laparoscopic TME surgery, robotic surgery may be a valid alternative and complementary approach with beneficial effects on minimally-invasive surgery.

Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Analysis of a Prospective Database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncological outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) at an NCI designated cancer center.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The effectiveness of laparoscopic TME could not be established, but the robotic-assisted approach may hold some promise, with improved visualization and ergonomics for pelvic dissection. Oncological outcome data is presently lacking.

METHODS

Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between April 2009 and April 2016 via a robotic approach were identified from a prospective single-institution database. The circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin, and TME completeness rates were determined. Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-free survival and overall survival was performed for all patients treated with curative intent.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients underwent robotic proctectomy during the study period. Robotic surgery was performed initially by 1 surgeon with 3 additional surgeons progressively transitioning from open to robotic during the study period with annual increase in the total number of cases performed robotically. Seven patients had involved circumferential resection margins (2.5%), and there were no positive distal or proximal resection margins. One hundred eighty-six patients had TME quality assessed, and only 1 patient (0.5%) had an incomplete TME. Eighty-three patients were followed up for a minimum of 3 years, with a local recurrence rate of 2.4%, and a distant recurrence rate of 16.9%. Five-year disease-free survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 82%, and 5-year overall survival was 87%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer can be performed with good short and medium term oncological outcomes in selected patients.

Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Phase II Open Label Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The phase II randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted surgery with those of laparoscopic surgery in the patients with rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

The feasibility of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has not been established yet.

METHODS

Between February 21, 2012 and March 11, 2015, patients with rectal cancer (cT1-3NxM0) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery, and stratified per sex and administration of preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The primary outcome was the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimen. Secondary outcomes were the circumferential and distal resection margins, the number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity, bowel function recovery, and quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 163 patients were randomly assigned to the robot-assisted (n = 81) and laparoscopic (n = 82) surgery groups, and 139 patients were eligible for the analyses (73 vs 66, respectively). One patient (1.2%) in the robot-assisted group was converted to open surgery. The TME quality did not differ between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups (80.3% vs 78.1% complete TME, respectively; 18.2% vs 21.9% nearly complete TME, respectively; P = 0.599). The resection margins, number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity, and bowel function recovery also were not significantly different. On analyzing quality of life, scores of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ C30) and EORTC QLQ CR38 were similar in the 2 groups, but in the EORTC QLQ CR 38 questionnaire, sexual function 12 months postoperatively was better in the robot-assisted group than in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer showed TME quality comparable with that of laparoscopic surgery, and it demonstrated similar postoperative morbidity, bowel function recovery, and quality of life.

Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. The aim of the present study was to determine if robotic surgery results in less conversion to an open operation than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies comparing a robotic vs. laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer surgery. The primary endpoint was conversion to open. All statistical analyses and data synthesis were conducted using STATA/IC version 14·2, Windows 64 bit (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-one studies were identified through electronic database search. After application of selection criteria as per PRISMA and MOOSE criteria, six RCTs and five PSM articles were analyzed. From the six RCTs, 512 robotic and 519 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower rate of conversion for the robotic surgery arm (4.1% vs. 8.1%, OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.00-0.57). Of the five PSM studies, 2097 robotic and 3053 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower conversion to open rate found in the robotic surgery cohort (7.4% vs. 15.6%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.30-0.47). Pooled RCT and PSM data demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates for robotic surgery (6.7% vs. 14.5%; OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.30-0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with reduced conversion to open surgery compared to a laparoscopic approach.

Security and Radical Assessment in Open, Laparoscopic, Robotic Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Comparative Study

Purpose:

This retrospective study was designed to assess the safety and effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, robotic colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods:

Three hundred patients with colorectal cancer who underwent curative resection in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between February 2014 and May 2016 were included. Patients were classified into open surgery group, laparoscopic surgery group, and robot-assisted group.

Results:

The blood loss in laparoscopic surgery group was less than that in open surgery group, and the blood loss in robot-assisted group less was than the open surgery group. The number of lymph node dissection in robot-assisted group was significantly larger than that in the open group (P < .05). The distance between the lower edge of the tumor group and the distal margin in robotic group was longer than that of the laparoscopic surgery group and the open group (P < .05). Three (2.8%) cases of urinary retention occurred in the open surgery group, 4 (3.92%) cases in the laparoscopic surgery group, and 1 (1.1%) case in the robot-assisted group, while 2 (1.87%) cases of sexual dysfunction occurred in the open surgery group, 2 (1.96%) cases in the laparoscopic surgery group, and 1 (1.1%) case in the robot-assisted group. The urinary retention and sexual dysfunction rate did not differ between the 3 groups (P > .05), but the minimally invasive group showed a certain advantage over the open group.

Conclusion:

Compared to the traditional open surgery, minimally invasive surgery (especially in robot-assisted group) has advantages such as less intraoperative bleeding, rapid postoperative recovery, and radical cure; open group, laparoscopic surgery group, and robot-assisted group have a similar incidence of postoperative complications, but reduction in the incidence of anastomotic leakage and intestinal obstruction. Robot-assisted group has the potential advantage for pelvic autonomic nerve protection.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan

PURPOSE

Scientific evidence supporting robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remains inconclusive because most previous reports were retrospective case series or case-control studies, with few reports focusing on long-term oncological outcomes with a large volume of patients. The aim of this study was to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of a large number of consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RALS in a single high-volume center.

METHODS

The records of 551 consecutive patients who underwent RALS for rectal adenocarcinoma between December 2011 and March 2017 were examined to reveal the short-term outcomes. The oncological outcomes of the 204 patients who underwent surgery between December 2011 and March 2014 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Most patients had tumors located in the lower or mid-rectum (86.0%). Only 7.6% of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed for 191 patients (34.7%). The median operative time was 257 min, median blood loss was 10 mL, and no transfusions were needed. No conversion to open surgery was necessary. Eighteen patients (3.3%) had Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Six patients (1.1%) had positive resection margins. The mean follow-up duration of the 204 patients was 43.6 ± 9.8 (months). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 100%/100%/100%/not reached, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 93.6%/75.0%/77.6%/ not reached, respectively. The rate of local recurrence was 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that RALS is technically feasible for rectal cancer and has good short- and long-term outcomes.

Right colectomy: consecutive 100 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique for malignancy. Cumulative experience in a single centre

Robotic-assisted resections prove beneficial in overcoming potential limitation of laparoscopy, but clear evidences on patient's benefits are still lacking. We report our experience on 100 consecutive patients who underwent right colectomy with either robotic or laparoscopic approaches. Data were prospectively collected on a dedicated database (ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results). Median total operative time was 160 min in LS group (IQR = 140-180) and 204 min for RS group (IQR = 180-230). Median time to first flatus was 2.5 days for LS group (IQR = 2 - 3) and 2 days for RS group (IQR = 1-2). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR = 6-10) and 5 days in RS group (IQR = 5-7). No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups when the number of harvested nodes, the anastomotic leakage and the postoperative bleeding were analyzed. The 30-day mortality was 0% in LS and RS groups. Conversion rate for LS group was 14% (7/50 pts) and for RS group was 0% (0/50). Minimally invasive surgery is a feasible and safe technique. The RS may overcome some technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery and it achieves the same oncological results compared to LS but with higher costs. The lower conversion rate allows to expect better clinical outcomes and lower complication rate.

Systematic review analysis of robotic and transanal approaches in TME surgery- A systematic review of the current literature in regard to challenges in rectal cancer surgery

Several patients' and pathological characteristics in rectal surgery can significantly complicate surgical loco regional tumor clearance. The main factors are obesity, short tumor distance from anal verge, bulky tumors, and narrow pelvis, which have been shown to be associated to poor surgical results in open and laparoscopic approaches. Minimally invasive surgery has the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity with equivalent short- and long-term oncological outcomes compared to conventional open approach. Achilles' heel of laparoscopic approaches is conversion to open surgery. High risk for conversion is evident for patients with bulky and low tumors as well as male gender and narrow pelvis. Hence, patient's characteristics represent challenges in rectal cancer surgery especially in minimally invasive approaches. The available surgical techniques increased remarkably with recently developed and implemented improvements of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. The controversial discussions about sense and purpose of these novel approaches are still ongoing in the literature. Herein, we evaluate, if latest technical advances like transanal approach or robotic assisted surgery have the potential to overcome known challenges and pitfalls in rectal cancer surgery in demanding surgical cases and highlight the role of current minimally invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery.

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 surgery for rectal cancer: the future?

Robotic technology currently offers some technical advantages in pelvic dissection compared with competing minimally invasive techniques, and adoption for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer is rapidly increasing worldwide. While there are some early data demonstrating modest improvement in patient outcomes, benefits in terms of long-term oncological outcomes, as well as potential improvements in surgeon-centered outcomes such as fatigue and repetitive stress injury are actively being investigated. Rapid innovation, with the impending release of several new robotic platforms, is likely to further expand the application of these technologies, improve on current limitations, and reduce capital and consumable costs. It is imperative that, as the technology develops and adoption increases further, clinician and research led programs drive safe implementation with a patient-first approach.

The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery

AIM

Quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes are at risk of being impaired after rectal surgery, but there has been no large prospective study to thoroughly assess QoL according to surgical approach. We have investigated the impact of laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) on QoL and functional outcomes.

METHOD

Patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic TME for rectal cancer between 2009 and 2013 were prospectively included in this questionnaire-based survey of QoL together with variations in urinary and sexual function. A propensity score analysis was retrospectively conducted to compare outcomes between groups in a cohort matched 1:1 for age, sex, body mass index, preoperative chemoradiation status and tumour height. The survey was performed preoperatively and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Global health status/QoL was similar between the two groups for 130 matched pairs, but the robotic group showed better role, emotional and social functioning and experienced less fatigue and financial difficulty. International Prostatic Symptom Scores in men increased postoperatively, with significantly less impairment in the robotic group at 6 months. These scores were comparable to preoperative scores at 6 months in the robotic group and at 12 months in the laparoscopic group. Of 48 sexually active men in each group, International Index of Erectile Function-5 scores decreased postoperatively, returning to preoperative levels at 6 months in the robotic group and at 12 months in the laparoscopic groups.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach for TME was associated with less impairment of urinary and sexual function; QoL was comparable to the laparoscopic approach.

Perioperative pain after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection

BACKGROUND

In order to improve the surgical treatment of rectal cancer, robot-assisted laparoscopy has been introduced. The robot has gained widespread use; however, the scientific basis for treatment of rectal cancer is still unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate whether robot-assisted laparoscopic rectal resection cause less perioperative pain than standard laparoscopic resection measured by the numerical rating scale (NRS score) as well as morphine consumption.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients were randomized to either laparoscopic or robot-assisted rectal resection at the Department of Surgery at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark. The intra-operative analgetic consumption was recorded prospectively and registered in patient records. Likewise all postoperative medicine administration including analgesia was recorded prospectively at the hospital medical charts. All morphine analogues were converted into equivalent oral morphine by a converter. Postoperative pain where measured by numeric rating scale (NRS) every hour at the postoperative care unit and three times a day at the ward.

RESULTS

Opioid consumption during operation was significantly lower during robotic-assisted surgery than during laparoscopic surgery (p=0.0001). However, there were no differences in opioid consumption or NRS in the period of recovery. We found no differences in length of surgery between the two groups; however, ten patients from the laparoscopic group underwent conversion to open surgery compared to one from the robotic group (p=0.005). No significant difference between groups with respect to complications where found.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, we found that patients who underwent rectal cancer resection by robotic technique needed less analgetics during surgery than patients operated laparoscopically. We did, however, not find any difference in postoperative pain score or morphine consumption postoperatively between the robotic and laparoscopic group.

Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures

Introduction

For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately.

Results

69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified.

Conclusion

Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.

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.

Outcome one year after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a consecutive cohort study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate outcome after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RARCS). We focused on conversion rate, postoperative complications, pathological evaluation (adequacy of resection margins), and bowel function (low anterior resection syndrome (LARS)) 1 year after surgery.

METHODS

An observational study of prospectively registered patients with data obtained from medical records. Data comprise the initial 208 rectal cancer patients operated with robot-assisted surgery at a single Danish university hospital from October 2011 to October 2014.

RESULTS

In total, 27 procedures (13%) were converted to open surgery, and 23 of the 27(85%) conversions were in the obese and overweight patients. The anastomotic leak rate was 12 (9%), and further 5 (2%) developed a complication requiring re-operation (ileus, bleeding, wound abscess). In total, 14 (7%) patients had a circumferential resection margin (CRM) ≤ 1 mm (R1-resection). In regard to bowel function, 15/22 (68%) of TME patients had major LARS at 6 months follow-up but at 12 months follow-up this proportion was reduced to 18/34 (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes after RARCS at a single high-volume university center are overall comparable to outcomes reported from laparoscopic surgery. The results are satisfying because they are achieved during implementation of RARCS. Randomized trials are, however, needed and focus should especially be on long-term follow-up in regard to functional outcome.

Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal surgery in high-risk patients

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal surgery is associated with a steep learning curve and high conversion rate despite progress in equipment design and consistent practice. The robotic system has shown an advantage over the laparoscopic approach due to stable three-dimensional views, improved dexterity and better ergonomics. These factors make the robotic approach more favourable for rectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery in high-risk patients.

METHOD

A prospectively collected dataset for high-risk patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery between May 2013 and November 2015 was analysed. Patients with any of the following characteristics were defined as high risk: a body mass index ≥30, male gender, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumour <8 cm from the anal verge and previous abdominal surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 184 high-risk patients were identified: 99 in the robotic group and 85 in the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly higher sphincter preservation rate (86% vs 74%, P = 0.045), shorter operative time (240 vs 270 min, P = 0.013) and hospital stay (7 vs 9 days, P = 0.001), less blood loss (10 vs 100 ml, P < 0.001) and a smaller conversion rate to open surgery (0% vs 5%, P = 0.043) compared with the laparoscopic technique. Reoperation, anastomotic leak rate, 30-day mortality and oncological outcomes were comparable between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery in high-risk patients is associated with higher sphincter preservation, reduced blood loss, smaller conversion rates, and shorter operating time and hospital stay. However, further studies are required to evaluate this notion.

The robotic approach significantly reduces length of stay after colectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has helped overcome several of the inherent limitations of conventional laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to identify any short-term advantage of robotic-assisted (RC) over laparoscopic colectomy (LC) using standardized nationwide data.

METHODS

Patients from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2012-2014 datasets who underwent elective LC or RC were compared for patient demographics, comorbidity, diagnosis, extent of colon resection, operative duration, and conversion rates. Thirty-day postoperative complications and post-discharge utilization of resources, readmission, and discharge to another facility were also evaluated. Propensity score matching was used to balance the sample size in the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 35,839 LC and RC procedures, 2482 cases were eligible for propensity score matching for the statistically significant variables (standardized difference > 0.10) and 1241 colectomy procedures were assigned to each group. Most of the major, minor surgical, and medical postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. However, RC was associated with reduced 30-day postoperative septic complications (2.3 vs. 4%, p = 0.02), hospital stay (mean: 4.8 vs. 6.3 days, p = 0.001), and discharge to another facility (3.5 vs. 5.8%, p = 0.01). RC was, however, associated with readmission within 30 days after surgery (9.4 vs. 9.1%, p = 0.049). Postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, reoperation, reintubation, and mortality were equivalent between RC and LC.

CONCLUSION

This propensity score-matched analysis suggests that RC is associated with some recovery benefits over LC. Greater experience with the technique may allow these advantages to counter some of the cost-related concerns that have deterred the more widespread utilization of robotic technology for colectomy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection for sphincter-saving surgery: pathological and short-term outcomes in a single-center analysis of 130 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive sphincter-saving rectal resection represents a challenging procedure. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer has several advantages over conventional surgery in performing precise dissection and was proved to be safe and effective in previous studies. However, comparison between laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection has drawn contradictory results. The aim of the present study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal resections for short-term and pathological outcomes.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and May 2016, we performed a total of 258 robotic surgeries, including 146 colorectal resections (56%). For this study, we included the first 65 sphincter-saving robotic resections and compared them to the last 65 consecutive laparoscopic resections. The laparoscopic group was constituted by the last 65 consecutively operated patients who matched the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the groups. Conversion rate was greater in the laparoscopic group (17 vs. 5%, p=0.044). Reoperation rate, overall and severe morbidity, and median hospital stay were similar in both the groups. Quality of mesorectal excision specimen was considered complete or near complete in 97 and 96% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively. There was no difference in the rates of negative circumferential radial margin, distal margin, and surgical success measured by composite criteria.

CONCLUSION

The main finding of this study was that robotic proctectomy for sphincter-saving procedures offers similar quality of TME with a statistically significant lower rate of conversion when compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.

Evaluation of the robotic approach concerning pitfalls in rectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility and advantages of robotic rectal surgery (RRS) in comparison to conventional open or laparoscopic rectal resections have been postulated in several reports. But well-known challenges and pitfalls of minimal invasive rectal surgery have not been evaluated by a prospective, multicenter setting so far. Aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative outcome of patients following RRS especially in regard to the pitfalls such as obesity, male patients and low tumors by a European multicenter setting.

METHODS

This prospective study included 348 patients undergoing robotic surgery due to rectal cancer in six major European centers. Clinicopathological parameters, morbidity, perioperative recovery and short-term outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 283 restorative surgeries and 65 abdominoperineal resections were carried out. The conversion rate was 4.3%, mean blood loss was 191 ml, and mean operative time was 315 min. Postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score >2 were observed in 13.5%. Obesity and low rectal tumors showed no significant higher rates of major complications or impaired oncological parameters. Male patients had significant higher rates of major complications and anastomotic leakage (p = 0.048 and p = 0.007, respectively).

DISCUSSION

RRS is a promising tool for improvement of rectal resections. The well-known pitfalls of minimal-invasive rectal surgery like obesity and low tumors were sufficiently managed by RRS. However, RRS showed significantly higher rates of major complications and anastomotic leakage in male patients, which has to be evaluated by future randomized trials.

Limited Evidence for Robot-assisted Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate available evidence on robot-assisted surgery compared with open and laparoscopic surgery.

METHOD

The databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing robot-assisted surgery with open and laparoscopic surgery regardless of surgical procedure. Meta-analyses were performed on each outcome with appropriate data material available. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate risk of bias on a study level. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence of the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

This review included 20 studies comprising 981 patients. The meta-analyses found no significant differences between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery regarding blood loss, complication rates, and hospital stay. A significantly longer operative time was found for robot-assisted surgery. Open versus robot-assisted surgery was investigated in 3 studies. A lower blood loss and a longer operative time were found after robot-assisted surgery. No other difference was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

At this point there is not enough evidence to support the significantly higher costs with the implementation of robot-assisted surgery.

Total robotic radical rectal resection with da Vinci Xi system: single docking, single phase technique

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the advantages of Da Vinci Xi system in rectal cancer surgery. It also assesses the initial oncological outcomes after rectal resection with this system from a tertiary cancer center in India.

INTRODUCTION

Robotic rectal surgery has distinct advantages over laparoscopy. Total robotic resection is increasing following the evolution of hybrid technology. The latest Da Vinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA) is enabled with newer features to make total robotic resection possible with single docking and single phase.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-six patients underwent total robotic resection in a single phase and single docking. We used newer port positions in a straight line. Median distance from the anal verge was 4.5 cm. Median robotic docking time and robotic procedure time were 9 and 280 min, respectively. Median blood loss was 100 mL. One patient needed conversion to an open approach due to advanced disease. Circumferential resection margin and longitudinal resection margins were uninvolved in all other patients. Median lymph node yield was 10. Median post-operative stay was 7 days. There were no intra-operative adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The latest Da Vinci Xi system has made total robotic rectal surgery feasible in single docking and single phase. With the new system, four arm total robotic rectal surgery may replace the hybrid technique of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal malignancies. The learning curve for the new system appears to be shorter than anticipated. Early perioperative and oncological outcomes of total robotic rectal surgery with the new system are promising. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.