The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis of a 3-arm comparison--open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Ann Surg. 2013;257:95-101. [PMID: 23059496 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182686bbd]

Essential advances in surgical and adjuvant therapies for colorectal cancer 2018-2019

Surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy are the only treatment modalities for localized colorectal cancer that can obtain a "cure." The goal in surgically treating primary colorectal cancer is complete tumor removal along with dissection of systematic D3 lymph nodes. Adjuvant treatment controls recurrence and improves the prognosis of patients after they undergo R0 resection. Various clinical studies have promoted the gradual spread and clinical use of new surgical approaches such as laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Additionally, the significance of adjuvant chemotherapy has been established and it is now recommended in the JSCCR (the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum) guideline as a standard treatment. Herein, we review and summarize current surgical treatment and adjuvant chemotherapy for localized colorectal cancer and discuss recent advances in personalized medicine related to adjuvant chemotherapy.

The impact of robotic total mesorectal excision on survival of patients with rectal cancer-a propensity matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), improving the quality of the surgery. We aim to compare the medium-term oncological outcomes of L-TME vs. robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who underwent L-TME or R-TME between 2011 and 2017. Patients presenting with metastatic disease or R1 resection were excluded. From a total of 680 patients, 136 cases of R-TME were matched based on age, gender, stage and time of follow-up with an equal number of patients who underwent L-TME. We compared 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Major complications were lower in the robotic group (13.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.04), highlighting the anastomotic leakage rate (7.4% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.01). The 3-year DFS rate for all stages was 69% for L-TME and 84% for R-TME (p = 0.02). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS was significantly higher in the R-TME group. OS was also significantly superior in the robotic group for every stage, reaching 86% in stage III. In the multivariate analysis, R-TME was a significant positive prognostic factor for distant metastasis (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.1, 0.6, p = 0.001) and OS (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.07, 0.4, p = 0.000). Moreover, major complications were also found to have a negative impact on OS (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.2, 21.6, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

R-TME for rectal cancer can achieve better oncological outcomes compared with L-TME, especially in stage III rectal cancers. However, a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm these findings.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic rectal surgery-from the real word data of 1145 consecutive cases in China

Background

Due to a limited patient sample size, substantial data on robotic rectal resection (RRR) is lacking. Here, we reported a large consecutive cases from the real word data to assess the safety and efficacy of RRR.

Methods

From September 2010 to June 2017, a total of 1145 consecutive RRR procedures were performed in patients with stage I–IV disease. We conducted an analysis based on information from a prospectively designed database to evaluate surgical outcomes, urogenital function, and long-term oncological outcomes.

Results

Of three types of RRR performed, 227 (24.2%) were abdominoperineal resections, 865 (75.5%) were anterior resections, and 3 (0.3%) were Hartmann. Conversion to an open procedure occurred in 5.9% of patients. The overall positive circumferential margin rate was 1.3%. Surgical complication rate and mortality were 16.2% and 0.8% within 30 days of surgery, respectively. Mean hospital stay after surgery and hospital cost were 6.3 ± 2.9 days and 10442.5 ± 3321.5 US dollars, respectively. Risk factors for surgical complications included male gender, tumor location (mid-low rectum), combined organ resection, and clinical T category (cT3–4). Urinary function and general sexual satisfaction decreased significantly 1 month after surgery for both sexes. Subsequently, both parameters increased progressively, and the values 1 year after surgery were comparable to those measured before surgery. At a median follow-up of 34.6 months, local recurrence and distant metastases occurred in 2.3% and 21.1% of patients, respectively.

Conclusions

Robotic rectal resection was safe with preserved urogenital function and arrived equivalent oncological outcomes in a nonselected group of patients with rectal cancer.

Advantages of using a robotic stapler in rectal cancer surgery

To compare short-term postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) after the use of robotic and laparoscopic staplers. Over a 5-year period, 196 patients were divided into 2 groups according to the use of laparoscopic (LS) or robotic stapler (RS). Patient demographics and postoperative complications were compared. A total of 145 (74%) robotic TME were performed using the LS and 51 (26%) the RS. No conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy were observed, in either group. Transection of the rectum using one or two firings was achieved in a higher proportion of RS cases (91%) compared with LS cases (60%; p < 0.001). The anastomotic leakage (AL) rate was 4% in the RS group vs. 7% in the LS group (p > 0.05). However, when three or more firings were needed for the rectal transection, the risk of AL increased (3.4% with ≤ 2 firings vs. 10.7% with ≥ 3 firings, p = 0.006). Our data confirm that multiple stapler firings for rectal transection have a major impact on AL. The robotic stapler simplifies the transaction, so that rectal division requires fewer stapler firings, with a potential reduction in the incidence of AL.

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.

[Standardized access options for colorectal surgery with the da Vinci Xi system]

BACKGROUND

Performing colorectal surgery with previous da Vinci system generations presented some limitations that caused uncertainty for surgeons as they began to apply robotic technologies. The da Vinci Xi system is designed to overcome these limitations and to enable multiquadrant colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The design concept of the da Vinci Xi system and the standardized access for colorectal surgery are explained.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The da Vinci Xi system applies an overhead boom that maximizes the arm workspace, minimizes interference and makes the port placement universal for standardized access. Colorectal approaches have been validated in numerous cadaver models confirming the reproducibility of the standardized access.

RESULTS

Standardized access with a straight-line port placement is possible in all colorectal applications. For right-sided hemicolectomy, a transverse abdominal approach as well as a suprapubic port placement are possible. Utilizing the same principles, left-sided colectomy, sigmoid colectomy and low anterior resections can be performed. Proctocolectomy is enabled through boom rotation and a second docking. Only minor arm-to-arm interferences occurred and were easily manageable by the bedside assistant. None of the approaches required rearrangement of the patient cart or swapping arms to different port locations.

CONCLUSION

The da Vinci Xi system enables a standardized access for colorectal surgery through a universal straight-line port placement. Learning this standard principle once enables the surgeon to apply it to all colorectal surgeries and shorten the learning curve as well as minimizing stress for both novices and experienced robotic surgeons learning a new surgical robotic platform.

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 vs laparoscopic rectal tumour surgery: a cohort study

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgery in terms of perioperative data, short-term outcome and compliance to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol.

METHOD

In this cohort study, 224 patients scheduled for rectal resection for cancer or adenoma between January 2011 and January 2017 were evaluated. In the first time period (12 January 2011 to 23 April 2014), 47 (46%) of 102 patients had laparoscopic surgery. In the second time period (24 April 2014 to 30 January 2017), 72 (59%) of 122 patients had robotic surgery. Perioperative data and short-term outcome were collected from the ERAS database and patient charts. Data obtained from laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the two time periods studied were compared. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes were compliance to the ERAS protocol, difference in postoperative complications and conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

Compliance to the ERAS protocol was 81.1% in the robotic group and 83.4% in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.890). Robotic surgery was associated with shorter median LOS (3 days vs 7 days, P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (11.1% vs 34.0%, P = 0.002), lower rate of postoperative complications (25% vs 49%, P < 0.01) and longer duration of surgery (5.8 h vs 4.5 h, P < 0.001). The differences remained after multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was associated with shorter LOS, lower conversion rates and fewer postoperative complications compared with laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery may add benefits to the ERAS protocol.

Pattern, Stage, and Time of Recurrent Colorectal Cancer After Curative Surgery

Surgery remains the mainstay of curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite curative surgery, some patients experience cancer recurrence. However, the pattern, stage, and time of recurrent disease (RD) remain unknown. We aimed to determine the pattern and stage of RD after curative open and laparoscopic surgery for CRC. Databases were searched using selected keywords for clinical studies that analyzed the pattern, stage, and time of RD from CRC. A systematic protocol was used for data extraction, data synthesis, and interpretation of results. Of 455 publications retrieved from databases, 9 clinical studies were selected for this systematic review. There is substantial evidence that pulmonary recurrence is most commonly associated with rectal tumors, and multisite RD appears more frequently with right-sided CRC. RD from colon cancers predominantly appears early in liver, while recurrences from rectal cancer appear late in lungs. Approximately 30% to 50% of RD after curative resection of CRC occurs within the first 2 years; however, median time to recurrence is gradually increasing, particularly for patients with rectal cancers. Advanced primary CRC is significantly correlated with more locoregional and distant RD, with worse disease-free survival. There is a decrease in the 5-year incidence of RD that is associated with prolongation of time of RD for both locoregional and metastatic disease. The duration and design of postoperative follow-up protocols for recurrences from CRC should be tailored to site and stage of primary tumor, as rectal cancers demand longer surveillance times than colon cancer.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of mini-laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancers: A propensity scoring matching approach

OBJECTIVE

Surgical technique process innovations are expected to generally incur no additional cost but gain better quality. Whether a mini-laparotomy surgery (MLS) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) is more cost effective than conventional open surgery had not been well examined. The objective of this study was to apply cost-effectiveness approaches to investigate the cost effectiveness of adopting MLS compared with open surgery 1 year following resection in CRC patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A prospective non-randomized cohort study design.

SETTING

An academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 224 patients who received elective MLS and 339 who received conventional surgery; after propensity score matching, 212 pairs were included for analysis.

INTERVENTION

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost measures were hospital-index cost and outpatient and inpatient costs within 1 year after discharge. Effectiveness measures were life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-year (QALYs) gained.

STATISTICAL METHODS

We calculated incremental costs and effectiveness by differences in these values between MLS and conventional surgery using adjusted predicted estimates.

RESULTS

MLS patients had lower rates of blood transfusions, less complication, and shorter post-surgical lengths of stay and more medical cost savings. One-year overall medical costs for MLS patients were TWD 748,269 (USD 24,942) per QALY gained, significant lower than for the comparison group (p-value = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Our findings supported that the less invasive surgical process through MLS not only saved medical costs, but also increased QALYs for surgical treatment in CRC patients.

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.

Different clinical features according to the anastomotic leakage subtypes after rectal cancer surgeries: contained vs. free leakages

Background

Anastomotic leakage can be classified by free and contained leakage according to clinical manifestations. The risk factors and their comparison between these leakage subtypes are uncertain. This study aims to evaluate anastomotic leakage patterns and to compare clinical features between free and contained leakages after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Materials and methods

Between January 2005 and December 2012, a total of 2035 consecutive patients who underwent low anterior resection for primary rectal cancer were evaluated retrospectively at two-tertiary referral centers. The primary end points of this study were to assess detailed clinical features among leakage subtypes. The secondary end point was to compare risk factors between free and contained leakages.

Results

Patients were subdivided into a no leakage group (n = 1890), free leakage group (n = 73), and contained leakage group (n = 72). Free leakage occurred more frequently in laparoscopic and robotic surgeries than open surgery (p = 0.015). On the other hand, contained leakage was developed in a higher rate of patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (p<0.001). The mean development time was 4.6 days in the free leakage group, and 23.6 days in the contained leakage group. Patients with free leakage had a lower rate of a defunctioning stoma than contained leakage (5.5% vs. 29.2%, p<0.001). Risk factors for free leakage were smoking, tumor location, and laparoscopic surgery. However, tumor location and preoperative chemoradiotherapy increased the risk for contained leakage.

Conclusions

Contained leakage in rectal cancer surgery showed different clinical manifestations and risk factors compared to free leakage. It is necessary to pay more attention to patients with particular risk factors for anastomotic leakage subtypes.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Preservation of Pathologic Outcomes in Robotic versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: Can the Robot Fill the Minimally Invasive Gap?

Open resection remains the standard of care in the surgical management of rectal cancer with recent studies unable to prove noninferiority of laparoscopic resection. Few studies directly compare robotic versus open techniques. This is a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients undergoing robotic or open rectal cancer resection during a three-year period. The primary endpoint was a composite of complete mesorectal excision, circumferential resection margin <1 mm, and distal resection margin <1 mm. The study cohort included 64 patients undergoing robotic (n = 28) or open (n = 36) resection. Successful surgical resection was similar between the robotic (75%) and open (76%) approaches. Robotic resection was associated with significantly lower blood loss ( P = 0.02) and significantly longer operative times ( P = 0.009) compared with open resection. Length of hospital stay and complications were similar between groups. Both male gender ( P = 0.03) and shorter tumor distance from the anal verge ( P = 0.01) were predictors for unsuccessful surgical resection in open, but not robotic, surgery. Pathologic outcomes are similar between robotic and open rectal cancer resection, even early in the learning curve. Tumor distance from the anal verge complicates open total mesorectal excision; however, robotic surgery is less impacted. Robotic resection may be a promising minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection.

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

AIM

To compare outcomes in patients undergoing rectal resection by robotic total meso-rectal excision (RTME) vs laparoscopic total meso-rectal excision (LTME).

METHODS

Standard medical electronic databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus were searched to find relevant articles. The data retrieved from all types of included published comparative trials in patients undergoing RTME vs LTME was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes were evaluated to assess the effectiveness of both techniques of TME. The summated outcome of continuous variables was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and dichotomous data was presented in odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

One RCT (ROLARR trial) and 27 other comparative studies reporting the non-oncological and oncological outcomes following RTME vs LTME were included in this review. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the RTME was associated with longer operation time (SMD, 0.46; 95%CI: 0.25, 0.67; z = 4.33; P = 0.0001), early passage of first flatus (P = 0.002), lower risk of conversion (P = 0.00001) and shorter hospitalization (P = 0.01). The statistical equivalence was seen between RTME and LTME for non-oncological variables like blood loss, morbidity, mortality and re-operation risk. The oncological variables such as recurrence (P = 0.96), number of harvested nodes (P = 0.49) and positive circumferential resection margin risk (P = 0.53) were also comparable in both groups. The length of distal resection margins was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RTME is feasible and oncologically safe but failed to demonstrate any superiority over LTME for many surgical outcomes except early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion and shorter hospitalization.

Appraisal and Current Considerations of Robotics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology aims to obviate some of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, yet the role of robotics in colorectal surgery is still largely undefined and varies with respect to its application in abdominal versus pelvic surgery.

METHODS

With this review, we aimed to highlight current developments in colorectal robotic surgery. We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We critically reviewed the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colon and rectal surgery.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is oncologically safe and has short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopy, with potential benefits in rectal surgery. It has a shorter learning curve but increased operative times and costs. It offers potential advantages in the resection of rectal cancer, due to lower conversion rates. There is also a trend toward better outcomes in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity, and perseveration of autonomic function.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy remains technically challenging and conversion rates are still high. Therefore, most cases of colorectal surgery are still performed open. Robotic surgery aims to overcome the limits of the laparoscopic technique. This new technology has many advantages in terms of articulating instruments, advanced three-dimensional optics, surgeon ergonomics, and improved accessibility to narrow spaces, such as the pelvis. However, further studies are needed to assess long-term results and benefits.

Meta-analysis of Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for relevant papers published between 2010 and December 2017 by using specific search terms. We analyzed outcomes over short- and long-term periods.

RESULTS

We identified 23 papers reporting results that compared RAS for rectal cancer with LAS. Our meta-analysis included 4,348 patients with rectal cancer; 2,068 had undergone RAS, and 2,280 had undergone LAS. In the short- and long-term period, 27 and 7 outcome variables were examined, respectively. RAS for rectal cancer was significantly associated with a greater operative time and a lower conversion rate to open surgery in the short-term, and results in almost similar outcomes in the long-term, compared to LAS.

CONCLUSION

RAS may be an acceptable surgical treatment option compared to LAS for rectal cancer.

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer

Aim. The robotic technique has been established as an alternative approach to laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer. Methods. The cases of robot-assisted or laparoscopic colorectal resection were collected retrospectively between July 2015 and October 2017. We evaluated patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and pathologic examination. A multivariable linear regression model was used to assess short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery. Short-term outcomes included time to passage of flatus and postoperative hospital stay. Results. A total of 284 patients were included in the study. There were 104 patients in the robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) group and 180 in the laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) group. The mean age was 60.5 ± 10.8 years, and 62.0% of the patients were male. We controlled for confounding factors, and then the multiple linear model regression indicated that the time to passage of flatus in the RCS group was 3.45 days shorter than the LCS group (coefficient = −3.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −5.19 to −1.71; P < .001). Additionally, the drainage of tube duration (coefficient = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.3 to 0.87; P < .001) and transfers to the intensive care unit (coefficient = 7.34, 95% CI = 3.17 to 11.5; P = .001) influenced the postoperative hospital stay. The total costs increased by 15501.48 CNY in the RCS group compared with the LCS group ( P = .008). Conclusions. The present study suggests that colorectal cancer robotic surgery was more beneficial to patients because of shorter postoperative recovery time of bowel function and shorter hospital stays.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Sphincter-Saving Surgery: Results of a Single-Center Series of 400 Consecutive Patients and Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) with laparoscopic TME (L-TME) in a series of consecutive rectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND

R-TME and L-TME have drawn contradictory reports. A recent phase III trial (ROLARR) concluded that R-TME performed by surgeons with varying experience did not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective single-center cohort study (8/2008 to 4/2015), data were prospectively registered. A total of 200 L-TME and 200 R-TME were operated consecutively without selection. The primary outcome was the conversion rate to open laparotomy or transanal TME. The secondary endpoints were type of anastomosis, operative time, postoperative morbidity, circumferential radial (CRM) and distal margins, quality of life, bladder and sexual dysfunction, and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Type of anastomosis [colo-anal anastomosis (CAA) 40% vs 49%; p < 0.001], transanal TME (5% vs 13%; p = 0.005), and conversion rate (2% vs 9.5%; odd ratio (OR): 0.19 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05-0.60]) were significantly different. Intersphincteric resection (39% vs 47%), diverting stoma (66.5% vs 68%), CRM involvement, median operative time (243 vs 232 min), and R0 resection rate were similar. Conversion risk was lower for R-TME in male patients and those with small tumors (< 5 cm). The 3-year overall survival rate was 84.1% [77.3-88.9%] and 88.4% [82.9-92.2%] in the R-TME and L-TME group. No significant differences were reported in quality of life, and urinary or sexual function.

CONCLUSIONS

R-TME is less likely to be converted to open surgery than L-TME; operative time and curative pathologic criteria are equivalent. Future prospective trial should compare standardized procedures performed by experienced surgeons for subgroups of high-risk patients.

The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery using a propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to clarify the short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer in a retrospective study.

METHODS

The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery (n = 130) were retrospectively compared to open (n = 234) and laparoscopic surgery (n = 318) by a propensity score analysis.

RESULTS

Robotic surgery was performed more frequently for patients with lower rectal cancer (55%) than open (30%, p < 0.0001) or laparoscopic surgery (36%, p < 0.0001). None of the robotic surgery cases were converted to open surgery. After propensity score matching, robotic surgery was found to be associated with a longer operation time (342 vs. 230 min, p < 0.0001) and less blood loss (7 vs. 420 mL, p < 0.0001) than open surgery. The overall complication rate of robotic surgery was lower than that of open surgery (13 vs. 28%, p = 0.032). Robotic surgery was associated with a lower incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) than laparoscopic surgery (0 vs. 7%, p = 0.028). There were no cases of anastomotic leakage after robotic surgery. The circumferential resection margin was involved in 0.8% of the patients who underwent robotic surgery; the incidence did not differ among the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although robotic surgery for rectal cancer was associated with a longer operation time, it was associated with a very low incidence of SSIs. The degree of safety was comparable to both open and laparoscopic surgery.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Rectal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Long-term oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal adenocarcinoma compared to open surgery continue to be debated. We aimed to review our high-volume single-institution outcomes in MIS rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was completed of all consecutive adult patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated from January 2005 through December 2011. Stage IV or recurrent disease was excluded. Demographics and operative and pathologic details were reviewed and reported. Primary endpoints include survival and recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 324 patients were included and median follow-up was 54 months (IQR = 37.0, 78.8). The mean age was 58.2 ± 14.1 years. Tumors were in the upper rectum in 111 patients, mid-rectum in 113 patients, and lower rectum in 100 patients. Stage III disease was most common (49.4%). Overall conversion to open procedure rate was 13.9%. The circumferential radial margin was positive in only 1 patient (0.3%) and the mean lymph node yield was 24.7 ± 17.2. Cancer recurred in 42 patients (13%), 10 (2.5%) patients developed local recurrence, 32 (9.8%) developed distant metastasis, and 2 (0.6%) patients had both. The 5-year overall survival for stage 0, 1, 2, and 3 disease is 96, 91, 80, and 77%, respectively (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected rectal cancer patients treated with MIS, long-term outcomes of survival and recurrence appear to compare favorably to previously published series.

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.

Robotic surgeries for patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone abdominal procedures: Protocol for meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the safety and the advantages of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries have been confirmed, the use of both modalities in patients with previous abdominal surgeries (PAS) history remains uncertain. Herein, we perform a meta-analysis to investigate the impact of PAS on perioperative recovery outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries.

METHODS

We will search PUBMED, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese Biomedical database (CBM), WanFang data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to January 2018. Studies will be screened by title, abstract, and full text independently and in duplicate. Studies that report the impact of PAS on perioperative recovery outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries will be eligible for inclusion. Outcome variables will be assessed included combined resection, conversion, operation time, blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes, days to soft diet intake, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. Assessment of risk of bias and data synthesis will be performed using STATA SE 12.0. Heterogeneity among studies will be assessed using the I statistic.

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and propensity-matched comparative studies will be used for the quantitative synthesis of the meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of PAS on perioperative recovery outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

We aim to draw an objective conclusion of the comparisons in aspects of perioperative outcomes and provide physicians level I evidences for clinical decision makings.

Comparison of complication and conversion rates between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer: which patients and providers could benefit most from robotic-assisted surgery?

AIMS

To compare (1) complication and (2) conversion rates to open surgery (OS) from laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic-assisted surgery (RA) for rectal cancer patients who underwent rectal resection. (3) To identify patient, physician, and hospital predictors of conversion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A US-based database study was conducted utilizing the 2012-2014 Premier Healthcare Data, including rectal cancer patients ≥18 with rectal resection. ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedural codes were utilized to identify surgical approaches, conversions to OS, and surgical complications. Propensity score matching on patient, surgeon, and hospital level characteristics was used to create comparable groups of RA\LS patients (n = 533 per group). Predictors of conversion from LS and RA to OS were identified with stepwise logistic regression in the unmatched sample.

RESULTS

Post-match results suggested comparable perioperative complication rates (RA 29% vs LS 29%; p = .7784); whereas conversion rates to OS were 12% for RA vs 29% for LS (p < .0001). Colorectal surgeons (RA 9% vs LS 23%), general surgeons (RA 13% vs LS 35%), and smaller bed-size hospitals (RA 14% vs LS 33%) have reduced conversion rates for RA vs LS (p < .0001). Statistically significant predictors of conversion included LS, non-colorectal surgeon, and smaller bed-size hospitals.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective observational study limitations apply. Analysis of the hospital administrative database was subject to the data captured in the database and the accuracy of coding. Propensity score matching limitations apply. RA and LS groups were balanced with respect to measured patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to LS, RA offers a higher probability of completing a successful minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer patients undergoing rectal resection without exacerbating complications. Male, obese, or moderately-to-severely ill patients had higher conversion rates. While colorectal surgeons had lower conversion rates from RA than LS, the reduction was magnified for general surgeons and smaller bed-size hospitals.

Transanal Endoscopic and Transabdominal Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid-to-Low Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Short-term Postoperative and Oncologic Outcomes by Using a Case-Matched Analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to compare short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes of a transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) to those of a transabdominal robotic TME.

Methods

A total of 62 patients with rectal cancer underwent transanal (n = 26) or robotic (n = 36) TME between June 2013 and December 2014. After case-matching by tumor location and TNM stage, 45 patients were included for analysis. The median follow-up period was 21.3 months. Operative, histopathologic and postoperative outcomes and recurrences were analyzed.

Results

Patients younger than 60 years of age were more frequently observed in the robotic TME group (75.0% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.059), but tumor location, cT and cN category, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were not different between the 2 groups. Estimated blood loss was greater in the transanal group (283 mL vs. 155 mL, P = 0.061); however, the operation time and the rate of a diverting ileostomy and subsequent ileostomy repair were not different between the groups. The proximal resection margin was longer in the transanal TME group (20.8 cm ± 16.0 cm, P = 0.030), but the distal resection margins, involvements of the circumferential resection margin, TME quality, numbers of retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak and voiding difficulty, and recurrence rates for the 2 groups were not statistically different.

Conclusion

Transanal endoscopic and transabdominal robotic TME showed similar histopathologic and postoperative outcomes with the exception of the estimated blood loss and the proximal resection margin for a select group of patients.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection: a comparative study of the robotic versus laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a challenging procedure due to its technical difficulty and higher incidence of surgical morbidity. We compared short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic LPND in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between May 2006 and December 2014, prospectively collected data from consecutive patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with LPND were retrospectively compared. Patients' demographics, perioperative outcomes, functional results, and initial oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty and 35 patients underwent robotic or laparoscopic TME with LPND, respectively. Bilateral LPND was performed in 10 patients (20%) in the robotic group and 6 (17.1%) in the laparoscopic group. For unilateral pelvic dissection, the mean operative time was not significantly different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 41.0 ± 15.8 min vs. 35.3 ± 13.4 min; P = 0.146), but the EBL was significantly lower in the robotic group (34.6 ± 21.9 mL vs. 50.6 ± 23.8 mL; P = 0.002). Two patients (4.0%) in the robotic group and 7 (20.0%) in the laparoscopic group underwent Foley catheter reinsertion for urinary retention postoperatively (P = 0.029). The mean number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPNs) was 6.6 (range 0-25) in the robotic group and 6.4 (range 1-14) in the laparoscopic group. Pathologic LPN metastatic rate was not different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 28.0 vs. 41.2%; P = 0.243). During the median follow-up of 26.3 months, overall recurrence rate was not different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 30.0 vs. 31.2%; P = 0.850). Three patients (6.0%) in the robotic group and 4 (11.4%) in the laparoscopic group developed local recurrence (P = 0.653).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic TME with LPND is safe and feasible with favorable short-term surgical outcomes.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery has gained acceptance as a less invasive approach in the treatment of colon cancer. However, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, particularly cancer of the lower rectum, is still challenging because of limited accessibility. Robotic surgery overcomes the limitations of laparoscopy associated with anatomy and offers certain advantages, including 3-D imaging, dexterity and ambidextrous capability, lack of tremors, motion scaling, and a short learning curve. Robotic rectal surgery has been reported to reduce conversion rates, particularly in low anterior resection, but it is associated with longer operative times than the conventional laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidities are similar between the robotic and conventional laparoscopic approaches, and oncological outcomes such as the quality of the mesorectum and the status of resection margins are also equivalent. The possible superiority of robotic surgery in terms of the preservation of autonomic function has yet to be established in research based on larger numbers of patients. Although robotic rectal surgery is safe, feasible, and appears to overcome some of the technical limitations associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the advantages provided by this technical innovation are currently limited. To justify its expensive cost, robotic surgery is more suitable for select patients, such as obese patients, men, those with cancer of the lower rectum, and those receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeries for Patients With Colorectal Cancer Who Have Had a Previous Abdominal Surgery

PURPOSE

The impact of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) on surgical outcomes from laparoscopic and robot surgeries is inconclusive. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PAS on perioperative outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries.

METHODS

From March 2007 to February 2014, a total of 612 and 238 patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgeries, respectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups: those who did not have a PAS (NPAS), those who had a major PAS, and those who had a minor PAS. We further divided the patients so that our final groups for analysis were: patients with NPAS (n = 478), major PAS (n = 19), and minor PAS (n = 115) in the laparoscopy group, and patients with NPAS (n = 202) and minor PAS (n = 36) in the robotic surgery group.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopy group, no differences in the conversion rates between the 3 groups were noted (NPAS = 1.0% vs. major PAS = 0% vs. minor PAS = 1.7%, P = 0.701). In the robotic surgery group, the conversion rate did not differ between the NPAS group and the minor PAS group (1.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.390). Among the groups, neither the operation time, blood loss, days to soft diet, length of hospital stay, nor complication rate were affected by PAS.

CONCLUSION

PAS did not jeopardize the perioperative outcomes for either laparoscopic or robotic colorectal surgeries. Therefore, PAS should not be regarded as an absolute contraindication for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and the effect of learning curve

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is safe and can accelerate recovery without compromising oncological outcomes. However, such a surgery is technically demanding, limiting its application in nonspecialized centers. The operational features of a robotic system may facilitate overcoming this limitation. Studies have reported the potential advantages of robotic surgery. However, only a few of them have featured the application of this surgery in patients with advanced rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT).From January 2012 to April 2015, after undergoing nCRT, 40 patients with mid or low rectal cancer were operated using the robotic approach at our institution. Another 38 patients who were operated using the conventional laparoscopic approach were matched to patients in the robotic group by sex, age, the body mass index, and procedure. All operations were performed by a single surgical team. The clinicopathological characteristics and short-term outcomes of these patients were compared. To assess the effect of the learning curve on the outcomes, patients in the robotic group were further subdivided into 2 groups according to the sequential order of their procedures, with an equal number of patients in each group. Their outcome measures were compared.The robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable with regard to pretreatment characteristics, rectal resection type, and pathological examination result. After undergoing nCRT, more patients in the robotic group exhibited clinically advanced diseases. The complication rate was similar between the 2 groups. The operation time and the time to the resumption of a soft diet were significantly prolonged in the robotic group. Further analysis revealed that the difference was mainly observed in the first robotic group. No significant difference was observed between the second robotic and laparoscopic groups.Although the robotic approach may offer potential advantages for rectal surgery, comparable short-term outcomes may be achieved when laparoscopic surgery is performed by experienced surgeons. However, our results suggested a shorter learning curve for robotic surgery for rectal cancer, even in patients who exhibited more advanced disease after undergoing nCRT.

Predictors of Utilization and Quality Assessment in Robotic Rectal Cancer Resection: A Review of the National Cancer Database

Robotic surgery (RS) is a novel treatment for rectal cancer resection (RCR); however, this technology is not widely accessible. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utilization of RS in RCR compared with open and laparoscopic techniques and to assess the quality of resection. RCR from 2010 to 2012 were identified using the National Cancer Database and placed into categories: open, laparoscopic, and robotic. A total of 23,857 patients who received open, laparoscopic, and robotic RCR were included (n = 14,735 (61.8%); 7,185 (30.1%); 1,937 (8.1%), respectively). Patients over 70 had a lower likelihood of robotic RCR. Patients with insurance were 2 times more likely to have robotic RCR. Patients at an academic/research program were more likely to undergo RS compared with a community cancer program (OR 3.6, 95% CI [2.79, 4.78]; P < 0.0001). Length of stay (LOS) was longer in open (7.9 ± 7.1) versus laparoscopic (6.6 ± 6.3) or robotic (6.8 ± 6.4) RCR (P < 0.0001). Although there was an increased likelihood of positive surgical margins with open RCR (OR 1.3, 95% CI [1.09, 1.66]; P < 0.0001), there was no difference in robotic and laparoscopic techniques. Younger insured patients at academic/research affiliated hospitals have a higher likelihood of receiving robotic RCR. Compared with open RCR, robotic RCR have a lower likelihood of positive surgical margins and shorter LOS.

The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to July 2016 to identify case-controlled studies that compared robotic TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME) for rectal cancer. GRADE was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 17 case-control studies (3601 participants: 1726 underwent RTME and 1875 LTME for rectal cancer) that compared RTME with LTME for rectal cancer. We found no statistically significant differences between techniques for local recurrence [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, P = .216] and overall survival at 3 years (OR = 0.71, P = 1.140), complications (OR = 1.02, P = .883), positive circumferential resection margin (PCRM) (OR = 0.80, P = .256), the first passing flatus [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.11, P = .130], reoperation (OR = 0.66, P = .080), estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = -12.45, P = .500), and length of stay in hospital (LOS) (WMD = -0.69, P = .089). Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.35, P < .001), urinary retention (OR = 0.41, P = .025), and longer operative time (WMD = 57.43, P < .001). The overall quality of evidence was poor in all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RTME in patients with rectal cancer was associated with a lower rate of conversion and less incidence of urinary retention. Generally, operative time in RTME was significantly longer than in LTME. The long-term oncological and function outcomes of RTME seem to be equivalent with LTME. Therefore, analysis of current studies to date did not indicate a major benefit of RTME over LTME.

A Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery in the Treatment of Right-sided Colon Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Multidimensional comparison between open, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery in the management of right-sided colon cancer are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the early perioperative results and oncologic outcomes among the 3 different methods.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2007 and 2011, a total of 96 patients who underwent right hemicolectomy in a single institution were classified into the open surgery (OS; n=33), the laparoscopy surgery (LS; n=43), and the robot surgery (RS; n=20) groups. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were comparable. Operation time was significantly longer in the RS and LS than the OS (P<0.001). There was 1 OS conversion in LS. There was no difference of total retrieved lymph node numbers among the 3 groups. Postoperative recovery was faster and hospital stay was shorter in RS than OS. However, there was no difference between LS and RS. After the median 40 months' follow-up, 5-year disease-free survival was similar among the OS, LS, and RS (87.7%, 84%, and 89.5%, respectively). Total charge and total patient charge were significantly higher in RS than the others.

CONCLUSIONS

Our comparative study demonstrates that the RS have better short-term outcomes in reducing hospital stay compared with the OS, but similar to the LS. Although the oncologic outcomes are similar, the benefit of RS in right hemicolectomy is unclear considering a high cost of RS.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

A Pooled Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

We conducted the meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) in treatment of rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Embase databases, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RTME versus LTME for rectal cancer and were published up to July 2014. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed. Depending on statistical heterogeneity, the fixed or random effect model was used for the meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest and related outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. These studies involved a total of 1229 patients, 554 of whom underwent RTME and 675 of whom underwent LTME. The meta-analysis showed that RTME had lower conversion rate and positive rate of circumferential resection margins, and lesser incidence of erectile dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that RTME for rectal cancer appears to be a safe, feasible, and minimally invasive alternative to its laparoscopic counterpart. But the long-term outcomes between the 2 techniques need to be further examined.

Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si®

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, with the use of the new da Vinci Xi® (Xi-RobTME group) and the da Vinci Si® (Si-RobTME group).

METHODS

Ten patients with histologically confirmed rectal cancer underwent robot-assisted TME with the use of the new da Vinci Xi. The outcomes of Xi-RobTME group were compared with a Si-RobTME group selected using a case-matched methodology.

RESULTS

Overall operative times and mean hospital stays were shorter in the Xi-RobTME group. Surgeries were fully robotic with a complete take-down of the splenic flexure in all Xi-RobTME cases, while only four cases of the Si-RobTME group were fully robotic, with two cases of complete take-down of the splenic flexure.

CONCLUSIONS

The new da Vinci Xi could offer some advantages with respect to the da Vinci Si in rectal resection for cancer. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Series of 392 Cases and Mid-Term Outcomes from A Single Center in China

BACKGROUND

Robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) for rectal cancer has recently been increasingly used; technical feasibility and short-term outcomes have been reported in detail. Few studies have presented clinical efficacy and mid-term outcomes for a large sample size. The aim of this study is to present oncologic efficacy and mid-term outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and to provide our experiences regarding these surgically challenging issues.

METHODS

Three hundred ninety-two patients received RTME between March 2010 and June 2015. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, complications, pathologic details, recurrence, and mid-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Duration of surgery ranged from 80 to 388 min (median 224 min). There were no deaths during surgery and no anesthesiology complications in our series. The conversion rate was 1.1% (4/392). The postoperative complication rate was 10.2%; anastomosis leakage was the most common complication with an incidence of 4.1% (16/392). The median blood loss was 67.5±34.3 (20-600). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 12.1±6.1 (6-64). Circumferential resection margins were negative in 387 out of 392 cases (98.7%). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 14.6. Two deaths occurred during 30-day mortality. At a mean follow-up of 24 months (range 3-66 months), there were 35 deaths.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that RTME is technically feasible for rectal cancer and can yield good short- and mid-term oncologic outcomes.

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.

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.

[Robotics in the operating room : Out of the niche into widespread application]

In the last few years robotic surgery has progressed from being confined to a small niche to a widespread application in routine visceral surgery; however, evidence for superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy from randomized studies with a sufficient number of patients is still lacking in most fields of visceral surgery. For complex operations that necessitate an extensive reconstruction phase, such as pancreatectomy, gastrectomy and esophagectomy, there is a potential benefit for the permanent and justified use of robotic surgery. Even in operations where delicate nerve preparation and radical surgical resection are simultaneously necessary, such as rectal resection, robotic surgery may provide certain benefits. In the long term there is a great potential for the integration of innovative techniques, such as navigation or other medical imaging procedures into robotic surgery, which can currently only partially be estimated. Care must be taken to avoid premature euphoria; however, due to the assumed great potential there is an urgent need for randomized studies to evaluate the possible benefits of robotic surgical techniques in visceral surgery in order to generate evidence for the welfare of patients.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Resection for Mid and Low Rectal Cancers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The current study was conducted to determine whether robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) has real benefit over laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) in terms of surgical and early oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 35 RLARs and 28 LLARs, performed for mid and low rectal cancers, from January 2013 through June 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were included in the study. All surgeries were performed successfully. The clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less intraoperative blood loss (165 vs. 120 mL; P < .05) and higher mean operative time (252 vs. 208 min; P < .05). No significant differences were observed in the time to flatus passage, length of hospital stay, and postoperative morbidity. Pathological examination of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimens showed that both circumferential resection margin and transverse (proximal and distal) margins were negative in the RLAR group. However, 1 patient each had positive circumferential resection margin and positive distal transverse margin in the LLAR group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 27 in the RLAR group and 23 in the LLAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancers were similar to those of laparoscopic surgery. The quality of TME specimens was better in the patients who underwent robotic surgery. However, the longer operative time was a limitation of robotic surgery.