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

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.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients

AIM

Obesity adds to the technical difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The robotic approach has the potential to overcome this limitation because of its proposed technical advantages over laparoscopy. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery (RS) vs conventional laparoscopy surgery (LS) in this patient population.

METHOD

Patients with a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m² undergoing RS or LS for rectal cancer between January 2011 and June 2014 were identified from an institutional database. Perioperative parameters, oncological findings and postoperative 30-day short-term outcomes were compared between the RS and LS groups.

RESULTS

The RS and LS groups included 29 and 27 patients, respectively. Groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics, body mass index (34.9 ± 7.2 vs 35.2 ± 5.0 kg/m² , P = 0.71), comorbidities, surgical and tumour characteristics. Comparison of the intra-operative findings revealed no significant differences between the groups including operative time (329.0 ± 102.2 vs 294.6 ± 81.1 min, P = 0.13), blood loss (434.0 ± 612.4 vs 339.4 ± 271.9 ml, P = 0.68), resection margin involvement (6.9% vs 7.4%, P = 0.99), conversions (3.4% vs 18.5%, P = 0.09) and complications (6.9% vs 0%, P = 0.49). Regarding postoperative outcomes, there were no significant differences in morbidity except that robotic surgery was associated with a quicker return of bowel function (median 3 vs 4 days, P = 0.01) and shorter hospital stay (median 6 vs 7 days, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer in obese patients has short-term outcomes similar to laparoscopy, but accelerated postoperative recovery.

Simultaneous robotic low anterior resection and prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of rectum and prostate: initial case report

Background

We report a case of synchronous rectal and prostate cancer treated successfully with simultaneous da Vinci robotic-assisted low anterior resection of the rectum and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy to address both cancers.

Case presentation

Recently, minimally invasive surgical techniques using da Vinci robot^® system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA) were introduced as curative surgical modality of prostate and rectal malignancies. Herein, we report an initial case of simultaneous robotic low anterior resection and robotic prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of rectum and prostate sharing a considerable number of port sites.

Conclusion

Simultaneous robotic-assisted low anterior resection could be performed with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy safely and effectively in synchronous rectal and prostate cancer.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon's experience: a cost analysis covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare surgical parameters and the costs of robotic surgery with those of laparoscopic approach in rectal cancer based on a single surgeon's early robotic experience.

METHODS

Data from 25 laparoscopic (LapTME) and the first 50 robotic (RobTME) rectal resections performed at our institution by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon (>100 procedures) between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed and compared. Patient demographic, procedure, and outcome data were gathered. Costs of the two procedures were collected, differentiated into fixed and variable costs, and analyzed against the robotic learning curve according to the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

RESULTS

Based on CUSUM analysis, RobTME group was divided into three phases (Rob1: 1-19; Rob2: 20-40; Rob3: 41-50). Overall median operative time (OT) was significantly lower in LapTME than in RobTME (270 vs 312.5 min, p = 0.006). A statistically significant change in OT by phase of robotic experience was detected in the RobTME group (p = 0.010). Overall mean costs associated with LapTME procedures were significantly lower than with RobTME (p < 0.001). Statistically significant reductions in variable and overall costs were found between robotic phases (p < 0.009 for both). With fixed costs excluded, the difference between laparoscopic and Rob3 was no longer statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a significant optimization of robotic rectal surgery's costs with experience. Efforts to reduce the dominant fixed cost are recommended to maintain the sustainability of the system and benefit from the technical advantages offered by the robot.

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −159.11 to −120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: −2.10, 95% CI: −3.47 to −0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: −0.97, 95% CI = −1.06 to −0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: −1.71.95% CI = −3.31 to −0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

AIM: To compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS: The clinical data for 120 rectal cancer patients treated from December 2014 to January 2016 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were analyzed retrospectively, of whom 63 underwent robotic surgery (robotic group) and 57 underwent laparoscopic surgery (laparoscopic group). Operative details, postoperative recovery and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: Operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (161.1 min ± 41.4 min vs 135.5 min ± 39.1 min, P = 0.001). Intra-oprerative blood loss in the robotic group was significantly less than that in the laparoscopic group (104.8 mL ± 70.8 mL vs 140.3 mL ± 81.4 mL, P = 0.013). The anal sphincter preservation rate was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group [65.0% (13/20) vs 25.0% (4/16), P = 0.017]. The time to first postoperative exhaust, time to resume liquid food and time to remove the urinary catheter were significantly shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.05). The cost was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (27.0 thousand yuan ± 11.0 thousand yuan vs 43.0 thousand yuan ± 13.0 thousand yuan, P = 0.000). No conversion occurred in the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of length of specimens, length of distal margin, number of resected lymph nodes, postoperative hospital stay and incidence of postoperative complications (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The robotic rectal cancer surgery can achieve a similar radical therapeutic effect to laparoscopic surgery. Moreover, it has the advantages of less trauma, less intraoperative bleeding, faster recovery, and higher anus preserving rate.

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: Laparoscopic vs robotic surgery

AIM: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.

METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014 (robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage I-III disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.

RESULTS: Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME (L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME (R-TME) (P < 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients (8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P < 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group (18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P < 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients (1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P < 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION: Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.

Effect of BMI on Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: a Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Many benefits of minimally invasive surgery are lost in the obese, but robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) may offer advantages in this population. Our goal was to compare outcomes for RALS in obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed for colorectal resections using RALS. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)), then case-matched for comparability. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates between groups.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were evaluated in each cohort. The BMI was significantly different (p < 0.01). All other demographics were well matched. There were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.86), blood loss (p = 0.38), intraoperative complications (p = 0.54), or conversion rates (p = 0.91) across cohorts. Length of stay was comparable between groups (p = 0.45). Postoperatively, the complication (p = 0.87), readmission (p = 1.00), and reoperation rates (p = 0.95) were similar. There were no mortalities. For malignant cases (37.8 %), the lymph node yield (p = 0.48) and positive margins (p = 1.00) were similar and acceptable in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In our matched RALS series, perioperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between obese and non-obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery. RALS is a feasible option in the surgical setting of the obese patient. Further controlled studies are warranted to explore the full benefits.

Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (R-LAR) with conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (L-LAR).

METHODS

A search in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Ovid databases was performed for studies published before July 2014 that compared the clinical and oncologic outcomes of R-LAR and L-LAR. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed. Depending on statistical heterogeneity, a fixed or random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The clinical and oncologic outcomes evaluated included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, rate of conversion to open surgery, post-operative complications, circumferential margin status, and number of lymph nodes collected.

RESULTS

Eight studies, including 324 R-LAR cases and 268 conventional L-LAR cases, were analyzed. The meta-analysis showed that R-LAR was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean difference (MD) = -1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.78, -0.28; P = 0.007), lower conversion rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.08; 95% CI = 0.02, 0.31; P = 0.0002), lower rate of circumferential margin involvement (OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.25, 1.01; P = 0.05), and lower overall complication rate (MD = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.43, 0.99; P = 0.04) compared with L-LAR. There was no difference in operative time (MD = 28.4; 95% CI = -3.48, 60.27; P = 0.08), the number of lymph nodes removed (MD = -0.63; 95% CI = -0.78, 2.05; P = 0.38), and days to return of bowel function (MD = -0.15; 95% CI = -0.37, 0.06; P = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

R-LAR was shown to be associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower conversion rate, lower rate of circumferential margin involvement, and lower overall complication rate compared with L-LAR. There were no differences in operative time, the number of lymph nodes removed, and days to return of bowel function.

Overview of robotic colorectal surgery: Current and future practical developments

Minimal access surgery has revolutionised colorectal surgery by offering reduced morbidity and mortality over open surgery, while maintaining oncological and functional outcomes with the disadvantage of additional practical challenges. Robotic surgery aids the surgeon in overcoming these challenges. Uptake of robotic assistance has been relatively slow, mainly because of the high initial and ongoing costs of equipment but also because of limited evidence of improved patient outcomes. Advances in robotic colorectal surgery will aim to widen the scope of minimal access surgery to allow larger and more complex surgery through smaller access and natural orifices and also to make the technology more economical, allowing wider dispersal and uptake of robotic technology. Advances in robotic endoscopy will yield self-advancing endoscopes and a widening role for capsule endoscopy including the development of motile and steerable capsules able to deliver localised drug therapy and insufflation as well as being recharged from an extracorporeal power source to allow great longevity. Ultimately robotic technology may advance to the point where many conventional surgical interventions are no longer required. With respect to nanotechnology, surgery may eventually become obsolete.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations

The introduction of laparoscopy is an example of surgical innovation with a rapid implementation in many areas of surgery. A large number of controlled studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with the same benefits than other minimally invasive procedures, including lesser pain, earlier recovery of bowel transit and shorter hospital stay. On the other hand, despite initial concerns about oncological safety, well-designed prospective randomized multicentre trials have demonstrated that oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery are similar. Although the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery has increased in recent years, the percentages of patients treated with surgery using minimally invasive techniques are still reduced and there are also substantial differences among centres. It has been argued that the limiting factor for the use of laparoscopic procedures is the number of surgeons with adequate skills to perform a laparoscopic colectomy rather than the tumour of patients’ characteristics. In this regard, future efforts to increase the use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery will necessarily require more efforts in teaching surgeons. We here present a review of recent controversies of the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, such as in rectal cancer operations, the possibility of reproducing complete mesocolon excision, and the benefits of intra-corporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy. We also describe the results of latest innovations such as single incision laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for colon and rectal diseases.

Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current status and perspectives

The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition three-dimensional vision, it translates the surgeon’s hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors’ centre.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery

There are an estimated 39,000 new cases of rectal cancer in the United States per year which makes it the third most prevalent cancer when paired with colon cancer. Given its complexity, there are now multiple modalities available for its successful treatment. This includes innovative chemotherapy, radiation, transanal resection techniques, and minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer represents the current pinnacle of minimally invasive technology for this disease process.

Laparoscopy Versus Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Initial Experience

Background Minimally invasive approach has gained interest in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study is to analyze the differences between laparoscopy and robotics for colorectal cancer in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes in an initial experience of a single center. Materials and Methods Clinico-pathological data of 100 patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer from March 2008 to April 2014 with laparoscopy and robotics were analyzed. The procedures were right colonic, left colonic, and rectal resections. A comparison between the laparoscopic and robotic resections was made and an analysis of the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups was performed. Results Forty-two patients underwent robotic resection and 58 underwent laparoscopic resection. The postoperative mortality was 1%. The number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in robotics. The conversion rate was 7.1% for robotics and 3.4% for laparoscopy. The operative time was lower in laparoscopy for all the procedures. No differences were found between the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups. Conclusions This initial experience has shown that robotic surgery for the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma is a feasible and safe procedure in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes, although an appropriate learning curve is necessary. Further investigation is needed to demonstrate real advantages of robotics over laparoscopy.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: A valid option for rectal cancer?

Low anterior resection can be a challenging operation, especially in obese male patients and in particular after radiotherapy. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) might offer technical advantages over laparoscopic or open approaches particularly for tumors in the distal third of the rectum. The aim of this article is to review the current experience with TaTME. The limits and future developments are also explored. Although the experience with TaTME is still limited, it might be a promising alternative to laparoscopic TME, especially for difficult cases where laparoscopy is too demanding. The preliminary data on complications and short-term oncological outcomes are good, but also emphasize the importance of careful patient selection. Finally, there is a need for large-scale trials focusing on long-term outcomes and oncological safety before widespread adoption can be recommended.

Emerging and Evolving Technology in Colon and Rectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery has changed the way we manage many colon and rectal pathologies. Multiple techniques, from straight laparoscopic procedures, to hand-assisted and single-port techniques are available, requiring surgeons to go through various learning curves. Robotic surgery is a relatively novel technique in general surgery which appears to hold most promise for rectal resection. Laparoscopic rectal procedures are difficult, and even in experienced hands, conversion rates are around 17%. Robotic surgery may be a point of difference in these cases, despite a long learning curve and higher costs. This article will describe the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. Room set up, port placement, and docking strategies will be described for common procedures, with emphasis on a hybrid robotic low anterior resection.

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

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery (RS) overcomes the limitations of previous conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Although meta-analyses have been published recently, our study evaluated the latest comparative surgical, urologic, and sexual results for rectal cancer and compares RS with CLS in patients with rectal cancer only.

METHODS

We searched three foreign databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Cochrane Library) and five Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi) during July 2013. The Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized were utilized to evaluate quality of study. Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio (RR), and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD). All meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager, V. 5.3.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies involving 2,224 patients were included. RS was associated with a lower rate of intraoperative conversion than that of CLS (RR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.54). Time to first flatus was short (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01). Operating time was longer for RS than that for CLS (MD, 49.97; 95% CI, 20.43-79.52, I(2) = 97%). International Prostate Symptom Score scores at 3 months better RS than CLS (MD, -2.90; 95% CI, -5.31 to -0.48, I(2) = 0%). International Index of Erectile Function scores showed better improvement at 3 months (MD, -2.82; 95% CI, -4.78 to -0.87, I(2) = 37%) and 6 months (MD, -2.15; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.22, I(2) = 0%).

CONCLUSION

RS appears to be an effective alternative to CLS with a lower conversion rate to open surgery, a shorter time to first flatus and better recovery in voiding and sexual function. RS could enhance postoperative recovery in patients with rectal cancer.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Surgical practice has been changed since the introduction of robotic techniques and robotic colorectal surgery is an emerging field. Innovative robotic technologies have helped surgeons overcome many technical difficulties of conventional laparoscopic surgery. Herein, we review the clinical studies regarding the application of surgical robots in resections for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted for articles published up to September 9, 2012, using the MEDLINE database. The keywords that were used in various combinations were: "surgical robotics," "robotic surgery," "computer-assisted surgery," "colectomy," "sigmoid resection," "sigmoidectomy," and "rectal resection."

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles reporting on robot-assisted resections of colon and/or rectum were identified and 41 studies were finally included in the analysis. A total of 1635 colorectal procedures were performed: 254 right colectomies, 185 left colectomies/sigmoid resections, 969 anterior resections, 182 abdominoperineal or intersphincteric resections, 34 colectomies (without being specified as right or left), and 11 total/subtotal colectomies. In general, blood loss, conversion rates, and complications were low but the operative time was longer than the open procedures, whereas the duration of hospitalization was shorter. The number of harvested lymph nodes was also quite satisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic colorectal operations provide favorable results, with acceptable operative times and low conversion rates and morbidity. Surgical robots may provide additional benefits treating challenging pathologies, such as rectal cancer. Further clinical studies and long-term follow-up are required to better evaluate the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery.

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database

BACKGROUND

Until randomized trials mature, large database analyses assist in determining the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. ACS NSQIP database coding now allows differentiation between laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) colorectal procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare LC and RC outcomes by analyzing the ACS NSQIP database.

METHODS

The ACS NSQIP database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RC and LC during 2013. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were identified. Using propensity score matching, abdominal and pelvic colorectal operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 11,477 cases were identified. In the abdomen, 7790 LC and 299 RC cases were identified, and 2057 LC and 331 RC cases were identified in the pelvis. There were significant differences in operative time, conversion to an open procedure in the pelvis, and hospital length of stay. RC operative times were significantly longer in both abdominal and pelvic cases. Conversion rates in the pelvis were less for RC when compared to LC--10.0 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for RC abdominal cases than for LC abdominal cases (4.3 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001) and for RC pelvic cases when compared to LC pelvic cases (4.5 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound complications, anastomotic leak, sepsis/shock, or need for reoperation within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

As the robotic platform continues to grow in colorectal surgery and as technical upgrades continue to advance, comparison of outcomes requires continuous reevaluation. This study demonstrated that robotic operations have longer operative times, decreased hospital length of stay, and decreased rates of conversion to open in the pelvis. These findings warrant continued evaluation of the role of minimally invasive technical upgrades in colorectal surgery.

The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques

The conventional laparoscopic approach to rectal surgery has several limitations, and therefore many colorectal surgeons have great expectations for the robotic surgical system as an alternative modality in overcoming challenges of laparoscopic surgery and thus enhancing oncologic and functional outcomes. This review explores the possibility of robotic surgery as an alternative approach in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The da Vinci® Surgical System was developed specifically to compensate for the technical limitations of laparoscopic instruments in rectal surgery. The robotic rectal surgery is associated with comparable or better oncologic and pathologic outcomes, as well as low morbidity and mortality. The robotic surgery is generally easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery, improving the probability of autonomic nerve preservation and genitourinary function recovery. Furthermore, in very complex procedures such as intersphincteric dissections and transabdominal transections of the levator muscle, the robotic approach is associated with increased performance and safety compared to laparoscopic surgery. The robotic surgery for rectal cancer is an advanced technique that may resolve the issues associated with laparoscopic surgery. However, high cost of robotic surgery must be addressed before it can become the new standard treatment.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colonic disease: a meta-analysis of postoperative variables

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of studies have been published since the introduction of robotic technology into general surgery. Gastrointestinal surgery is an area of special interest for the robotic surgeon. Colonic surgery can be challenging depending on the disease and the operative approach. We seek to perform a meta-analysis comparing robotic surgery against laparoscopic surgery in this particular field.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE database from January 2001 to July 2013 supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of key relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were selected for review and for collection of postoperative data (length of stay, time to first flatus and complications).

RESULTS

After careful review, nine studies were considered for analysis. Non-pooled data showed a slight trend toward laparoscopy with increased number of events without statistical significance. Pooled data demonstrated a statistical significance for return to bowel function in the right and mixed robotic colectomy arm (WSMD -0.33, 95 % CI -0.5, -0.1; p < 0.005 and WSMD -0.26, 95 % CI -0.51, 0.0; p = 0.05). Pooled data of length of stay and complications showed no statistical significance between robotic and laparoscopic colonic surgery.

DISCUSSION

Robotic surgery is a comparable option when dealing with colonic disease, either benign or malignant. No difference in complication rate or length of stay was found when comparing the two. Robotic surgery appears to have an advantage over laparoscopy in regards to return of bowel function when dealing with right colectomies.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic surgery at a single institution.

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is regarded as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer were acceptable in previous reports. However, evidence of long-term feasibility and oncologic safety is required.

METHODS

Between April 2006 and August 2011, 217 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer with stage I-III disease were enrolled prospectively (robot, n = 133; laparoscopy, n = 84). Median follow-up period was 58 months (range, 4-80 months). Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes, morbidities, 5-year survival rates, prognostic factors, and cost were evaluated.

RESULTS

Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes demonstrated no significant differences except for the conversion rate and length of hospital stay. The 5-year overall survival rate was 92.8% in robotic, and 93.5% in laparoscopic surgical procedures (P = 0.829). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 81.9% and 78.7%, respectively (P = 0.547). Local recurrence was similar: 2.3% and 1.2% (P = 0.649). According to the univariate analysis, this type of surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for long-term survival. The patient's mean payment for robotic surgery was approximately 2.34 times higher than laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were found in the 5-year overall, disease-free survival and local recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures. We concluded that robotic surgery for rectal cancer failed to offer any oncologic or clinical benefits as compared with laparoscopy despite an increased cost.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery, but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer (RC). We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) in patients with RC are equivalent to those of laparoscopic TME (LTME).

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RTME with LTME for RC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified that included 1229 patients in total, 554 (45.08 %) in the RTME group and 675 (54.92 %) in the LTME group. Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower conversion rate (OR 0.23, 95 % CI [0.10, 0.52]; P = 0.0004), lower positive rate of circumferential resection margins (CRM) (2.74 % vs 5.78 %, OR 0.44, 95 % CI [0.20, 0.96], P = 0.04), and lesser incidence of erectile dysfunction (ED) (OR 0.09, 95 % CI [0.02, 0.41]; P = 0.002). Operation time, estimated blood loss, recovery outcome, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, number of lymph nodes harvested, distal resection margin (DRM), proximal resection margin (PRM), and local recurrence had no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RTME is safe and feasible and may be an alternative treatment for RC. More international multicenter prospective large sample RCTs investigating the long-term oncological and functional outcomes are needed to determine the advantages of RTME over LTME in RC.

Robotic general surgery: current practice, evidence, and perspective

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology commenced to be adopted for the field of general surgery in the 1990s. Since then, the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has remained by far the most commonly used system in this domain. The da Vinci surgical system is a master-slave machine that offers three-dimensional vision, articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom, and additional software features such as motion scaling and tremor filtration. The specific design allows hand-eye alignment with intuitive control of the minimally invasive instruments. As such, robotic surgery appears technologically superior when compared with laparoscopy by overcoming some of the technical limitations that are imposed on the surgeon by the conventional approach.

PURPOSE

This article reviews the current literature and the perspective of robotic general surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

While robotics has been applied to a wide range of general surgery procedures, its precise role in this field remains a subject of further research. Until now, only limited clinical evidence that could establish the use of robotics as the gold standard for procedures of general surgery has been created. While surgical robotics is still in its infancy with multiple novel systems currently under development and clinical trials in progress, the opportunities for this technology appear endless, and robotics should have a lasting impact to the field of general surgery.

The magnetic resonance imaging-based approach for identification of high-risk patients with upper rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying upper rectal cancer patients who are at high risk for local recurrence.

METHODS

110 upper rectal cancer patients with locally advanced (pT3-4N0 or pTanyN+) tumors treated with tumor-specific mesorectal excision and no adjuvant radiotherapy were identified from an institutional database at a large academic medical center in Korea. Information on the extent of mesorectal invasion, sacral-side involvement was collected from preoperative MRI.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 47 months, 5 patients (4.5%) experienced local recurrence (LR). LR rates for patients with intermediate risk (T1-2/N1, T3N0), moderately high risk (T1-2/N2, T3N1, T4N0), and high risk (T3N2, T4/N1-2) were 3%, 4.8%, and 8.7%, respectively. Patients who did not have sacral-side involvement or mesorectal invasion of 5 mm or less did not experience LR. The patients with sacral-side involvement and intermediate risk, moderately high risk, and high risk had an LR rate of 4.2%, 5.6%, and 10%, respectively, or 11.1%, 33.3%, and 18.2%, respectively, when combined with those with mesorectal invasion of greater than 5 mm. Multivariate analyses demonstrated the presence of both sacral-side location and mesorectal invasion of greater than 5 mm was significantly associated with adverse disease-free and overall survival (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mesorectal invasion of greater than 5 mm and sacral-side involvement identified on MRI were at an increased risk of local recurrence. The detection of these features on MRI provides prognostic information that is not available in conventional risk classification systems. Improved identification of a high-risk subset of upper rectal cancer patients may guide indications for preoperative chemoradiotherapy in this subset.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Current status of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A bird's eye view

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach and has been validated in randomized controlled trials to be oncologically safe with better perioperative outcomes than open surgery including shorter length of stay, earlier return of bowel function, better cosmesis, and less analgesic requirement. Laparoscopic surgery, however, has inherent limitations due to two-dimensional vision, restricted instrument motion and a very long learning curve. Robotic surgery with its superb three-dimensional magnified optics, stable retraction platform and 7 degrees of freedom of instrument movement offers significant benefits during Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) including ease of operation, markedly lower conversion rates and better quality of the specimen in addition to shorter (steeper) learning curves. This review summarizes the current evidence for the adoption of robotic TME for rectal cancer with supporting data from the literature and from the authors' own experience. All relevant articles from PubMed using the search terms listed below and published between 2000 and 2014 including randomized trials, meta-analyses, prospective studies, and retrospective reviews with substantial numbers were included.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Resection: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopy has been applied to colorectal resections for more than 2 decades. However, laparoscopic rectal resection is technically demanding, especially when performing a tumor-specific mesorectal excision in a difficult pelvis. Robotic surgery is uniquely designed to overcome most of these technical limitations. The aim of this study was to confirm the feasibility of robotic rectal cancer surgery in a large multicenter study.

METHODS

Retrospective data of 425 patients who underwent robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal lesions at seven institutions were collected. Outcome data were analyzed for the overall cohort and were stratified according to obese versus non-obese and low versus ultra-low resection patients.

RESULTS

Mean age was 60.9 years, and 57.9 % of patients were male. Overall, 51.3 % of patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy, while operative time was 240 min, mean blood loss 119 ml, and intraoperative complication rate 4.5 %. Mean number of lymph nodes was 17.4, with a positive circumferential margin rate of 0.9 %. Conversion rate to open was 5.9 %, anastomotic leak rate was 8.7 %, with a mean length of stay of 5.7 days. Operative times were significantly longer and re-admission rate higher for the obese population, with all other parameters comparable. Ultra-low resections also had longer operative times.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is safe and can be performed according to current oncologic principles. BMI seems to play a minor role in influencing outcomes. Thus, robotics might be an excellent treatment option for the challenging patient undergoing resection for rectal cancer.

Have early postoperative complications from laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery improved over the past 20 years?

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been increasingly used since 1991 following the publication of the first case series. Since then, several studies have confirmed that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is challenging with associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine if the rates of early postoperative complications in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery have improved over the past 20 years.

METHOD

A literature search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases between August 1991 and August 2011 was conducted using the keywords laparoscopy, rectal cancer and postoperative complications. Data were analysed using linear regression ANOVA performed in GNUMERICS software.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies were included for analysis. Over the last 20 years there has been no significant change in the rate of any early postoperative complications (anastomotic leak, conversion, sexual, urinary or faecal dysfunction, wound infection, overall morbidity or mortality). However, in the last 3 years, the rate of positive resection margins has decreased significantly (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of a statistically significant change in early postoperative complications until 3 years ago. This may reflect the inherent morbidity associated with rectal surgery regardless of the approach used, the limitations of the current laparoscopic instrumentation or the relatively long learning curve. With increasing experience, a repeat analysis in the near future following the publication of ongoing randomized clinical trials might show improved outcomes.

Is the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection shorter than laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer?: a comparative analysis of clinicopathologic outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries

As robotic surgery was developed with ergonomic designs, there are expectations that the technical advantages of robotic surgery can shorten the learning curve. However, there is no comparative study, so far, to evaluate the learning curve between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgeries. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection (LAR) with laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer.Patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic LAR by a single surgeon were compared retrospectively (robot n = 89 vs laparoscopy n = 89). Cumulative sum (CUSUM) was used to evaluate the learning curve. The patients were divided into phase 1 (initial learning curve period) and phase 2 (post-learning curve period). The perioperative clinicopathologic characteristics were compared by phases and surgical procedures.According to CUSUM, the learning curve of robotic LAR was the 44th case and laparoscopic LAR was the 41st case. The learning phases were divided as follows: phase 1 (cases 1-41) versus phase 2 (cases 42-89) in the laparoscopic group, and phase 1 (cases 1-44) versus phase 2 (cases 45-89) in the robotic group. Comparison between phase 1 and phase 2 in each type of surgery showed no significant difference for the perioperative outcomes. Comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries in each phase showed similar perioperative results. Pathologic outcomes were not significantly different in both procedures and phases.The learning curve of robotic LAR for rectal cancer was similar to laparoscopic LAR, and the clinicopathologic outcomes were similar in both the procedures.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: Current immediate clinical and oncological outcomes

Laparoscopic rectal surgery continues to be a challenging operation associated to a steep learning curve. Robotic surgical systems have dramatically changed minimally invasive surgery. Three-dimensional, magnified and stable view, articulated instruments, and reduction of physiologic tremors leading to superior dexterity and ergonomics. Therefore, robotic platforms could potentially address limitations of laparoscopic rectal surgery. It was aimed at reviewing current literature on short-term clinical and oncological (pathological) outcomes after robotic rectal cancer surgery in comparison with laparoscopic surgery. A systematic review was performed for the period 2002 to 2014. A total of 1776 patients with rectal cancer underwent minimally invasive robotic treatment in 32 studies. After robotic and laparoscopic approach to oncologic rectal surgery, respectively, mean operating time varied from 192-385 min, and from 158-297 min; mean estimated blood loss was between 33 and 283 mL, and between 127 and 300 mL; mean length of stay varied from 4-10 d; and from 6-15 d. Conversion after robotic rectal surgery varied from 0% to 9.4%, and from 0 to 22% after laparoscopy. There was no difference between robotic (0%-41.3%) and laparoscopic (5.5%-29.3%) surgery regarding morbidity and anastomotic complications (respectively, 0%-13.5%, and 0%-11.1%). Regarding immediate oncologic outcomes, respectively among robotic and laparoscopic cases, positive circumferential margins varied from 0% to 7.5%, and from 0% to 8.8%; the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was between 10 and 20, and between 11 and 21; and the mean distal resection margin was from 0.8 to 4.7 cm, and from 1.9 to 4.5 cm. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is being undertaken by experienced surgeons. However, the quality of the assembled evidence does not support definite conclusions about most studies variables. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is associated to increased costs and operating time. It also seems to be associated to reduced conversion rates. Other short-term outcomes are comparable to conventional laparoscopy techniques, if not better. Ultimately, pathological data evaluation suggests that oncologic safety may be preserved after robotic total mesorectal excision. However, further studies are required to evaluate oncologic safety and functional results.

Evolution of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery: An evidence-based review

Open surgery for colorectal disease has progressed significantly over the past century from humble beginnings to form the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer and a number of benign conditions. Following the introduction of laparoscopic abdominal surgery, the next stage in the evolution of the specialty began in the 1990s with the first laparoscopic colonic resection. Following some early concerns regarding its safety and oncological efficacy during the latter part of that decade, laparoscopic colorectal surgery rapidly came into mainstream use in the early part of the current century with evidence supporting its use being made available from large scale randomised controlled trials. This article provides an evidence-based summary of this evolutionary process as it relates to both benign and malignant colorectal disease, as well as discussion of the next phase of new technologies such as robotic surgery.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials

Background

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy is popularly performed for colorectal disease. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RCS) and laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) for colorectal disease based on randomized controlled trial studies.

Methods

Literature searches of electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were performed to identify randomized controlled trial studies that compared the clinical or oncologic outcomes of RCS and LCS. This meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software (version 5.2) that is provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. The data used were mean differences and odds ratios for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Fixed-effects or random-effects models were adopted according to heterogeneity.

Results

Four randomized controlled trial studies were identified for this meta-analysis. In total, 110 patients underwent RCS, and 116 patients underwent LCS. The results revealed that estimated blood losses (EBLs), conversion rates and times to the recovery of bowel function were significantly reduced following RCS compared with LCS. There were no significant differences in complication rates, lengths of hospital stays, proximal margins, distal margins or harvested lymph nodes between the two techniques.

Conclusions

RCS is a promising technique and is a safe and effective alternative to LCS for colorectal surgery. The advantages of RCS include reduced EBLs, lower conversion rates and shorter times to the recovery of bowel function. Further studies are required to define the financial effects of RCS and the effects of RCS on long-term oncologic outcomes.

Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology has been applied to colorectal surgery over the last decade. The aim of this review is to analyze the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery systematically and to provide objective information to surgeons.

METHODS

Studies were searched and identified using PubMed and Google Scholar from Jan 2001 to Feb 2013 with the search terms "robot," "robotic," "colon," "rectum," "colorectal," and "colectomy." Appropriate data in the studies about the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine publications were included in this review and composed of 39 case series, 29 comparative studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Most of the studies reported that robotic surgery showed a longer operation time, less estimated blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, lower complication and conversion rates, and comparable oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic or open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery is a safe and feasible option. Robotic surgery showed comparable short-term outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery or open surgery. However, the long operation time and high cost are the limitations of robotic surgery.

[Robotic colorectal surgery: current status and future developments]

Robotic assistance has the potential to compensate for the limitations inherent in standard laparoscopic surgery. The daVinci® surgical system remains the only currently available commercial robotic system. It has found popularity in rectal cancer surgery where its application has consistently been shown to reduce the need to convert to open surgery. With this exception, the technological advances of the robotic system have not so far translated into any reproducible patient benefit. The first part of this manuscript presents an overview of the current daVinci® platform, its applications, the evidence base and future developments in colorectal surgery. The second part of the manuscript looks at other robot systems in development and the different innovations and strategies taken to advance minimally invasive surgery.The English full-text version of this article is available at SpringerLink (under supplemental).

Minimal access surgery for rectal cancer: an update

Minimally invasive or minimal access surgery (MAS) for colon and rectal cancer was introduced in the early 1990s. Although laparoscopic colon surgery is now practiced worldwide, technical barriers, including a steep learning curve, preclude the widespread adoption of MAS techniques for rectal cancer. In addition, although randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that MAS techniques for colon cancer are oncologically equivalent to open surgery, similar confirmatory studies for rectal cancer have yet to be reported. In this Review, current evidence in support of laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer resection is presented. Other MAS approaches, such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, are also discussed.

Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparative study of short and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite the several series in which the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery were investigated, data concerning the long-term outcomes are still scarce.

METHODS

The prospectively collected records of 65 consecutive patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) were compared with those of 109 consecutive patients treated with open surgery (OTME). Patient characteristics, pathological findings, local and systemic recurrence rates and 5-year survival rates were compared.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications, reoperation and 30-day mortality. There were significant differences comparing groups: number of lymph nodes harvested (RTME: 20.1 vs. OTME: 14.1, P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (RTME: 0 vs. OTME: 150 ml, P = 0.003), operation time (RTME: 299.0 vs. OTME: 207.5 min, P < 0.001) and length of postoperative stay (RTME: 6 vs. OTME: 9 days, P < 0.001). The rate of circumferential resection margin involvement and distal resection margin were not statistically different between groups. There were no statistically significant differences at the 5-year follow-up: overall survival, disease-free survival and cancer-specific survival. The cumulative local recurrence rate was statistically lower in the robotic group (RTME: 3.4% vs. OTME: 16.1%, P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

RTME showed a significant reduction in local recurrence rate and a higher, although not statistically significant, long-term cancer-specific survival with respect to OTME. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm or deny significantly better local control rates with robotic surgery.

Robotic hybrid technique in rectal surgery for deep pelvic endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Deep pelvic endometriosis is a complex disorder that affects 6% to 12% of all women in childbearing age. The incidence of bowel endometriosis ranges between 5.3% and 12%, with rectum and sigma being the most frequently involved tracts, accounting for about 80% of cases. It has been reported that segmental colorectal resection is the best surgical option in terms of recurrence rate and improvement of symptoms. The aim of this study is to analyze indications, feasibility, limits, and short-term results of robotic (Da Vinci Surgical System)-assisted laparoscopic rectal sigmoidectomy for the treatment of deep pelvic endometriosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2010, 19 women with bowel endometriosis underwent colorectal resection through the robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach. Intraoperative and postoperative data were collected. All procedures were performed in a single center and short-term complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Nineteen robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal resections for infiltrating endometriosis were achieved. Additional procedures were performed in 7 patients (37%). No laparotomic conversion was performed. No intraoperative complications were observed. The mean operative time was 370 minutes (range = 250-720 minutes), and the estimated blood loss was 250 mL (range = 50-350 mL). The overall complication rate was 10% (2 rectovaginal fistulae).

CONCLUSIONS

Deep pelvic endometriosis is a benign condition but may have substantial impact on quality of life due to severe pelvic symptoms. We believe that robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal resection is a feasible and relatively safe procedure in the context of close collaboration between gynecologists and surgeons for treatment of deep pelvic endometriosis with intestinal involvement, with low rates of complications and significant improvement of intestinal symptoms.

Anesthetic considerations for robotic surgery

Recently, demand for minimally invasive surgery has increased greatly. As a result, robot-assisted techniques have gained in popularity, because they overcome several of the shortcomings of conventional laparoscopic techniques. However, robotic surgery may require innovations with regard to patient positioning and the overall arrangement of operative equipment and personnel, which may go against the conservative nature of anesthesia care. Anesthesiologists should become familiar with these changes by learning the basic features of robotic surgical systems to offer better anesthetic care and promote patient safety.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery; but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer (RC). We conducted this meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of RTME in patients with RC are equivalent to those of LTME.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RTME with LTME for RC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified that included 1229 patients in total, 554 (45.08%) in the RTME and 675 (54.92%) in the LTME. Meta-analysis suggested that the conversion rate to open surgery in RTME was significantly lower than in LTME (P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, recovery outcome, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, and the oncological accuracy of resection and local recurrence between the two groups. The positive rate of circumferential resection margins (P = 0.04) and the incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.002) were lower in RTME compared with LTME.

CONCLUSIONS

RTME for RC is safe and feasible, and the short- and medium-term oncological and functional outcomes are equivalent or preferable to LTME. It may be an alternative treatment for RC. More multicenter randomized controlled trials investigating the long-term oncological and functional outcomes are required to determine the advantages of RTME over LTME in RC.

Robotic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence

BACKGROUND

Several studies have confirmed that laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in improved early post-operative outcomes. Nevertheless, conventional laparoscopic approach and instruments have several limitations. Robotic approach could potentially address of many of these limitations.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to present a summary of the current evidence on the role of robotic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases (Pubmed, Science Direct and Google scholar) using the key words "rectal surgery", "laparoscopic", "colonic" and "robotic." Evidence from these data was critically analysed and summarised to produce this article.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is both safe and feasible. However, it has no clear advantages over standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery in terms of early postoperative outcomes or complications profile. It has shorter learning curve but increased operative time and cost. It could offer potential advantage in resection of rectal cancer as it has a lower conversion rates even in obese individuals, distal rectal tumours and patients who had preoperative chemoradiotherpy. There is also a trend towards better outcome in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity and perseveration of autonomic function, but there was no clear statistical significance to support this from the currently available data.

CONCLUSION

The use of robotic approach seems to be capable of addressing most of the shortcomings of the standard laparoscopic surgery. The technique has proved its safety profile in both colonic and rectal surgery. However, the cost involved may restrict its use to patients with challenging rectal cancer and in specialist centres.

Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Robotic-Assisted Surgery with Traditional Laparotomy for Rectal Cancer-Indian Study

Rectal cancer is one of the common cancers in India. Surgical management is the mainstay of initial treatment for majority of patients. Minimally invasive surgery has gained acceptance for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer because, compared with laparotomy, it is associated with fewer complications, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety, feasibility, technique, and outcomes (postoperative, oncological, and functional) of robotic-assisted rectal surgery in comparison with open surgery in the Indian population. A prospective randomized study was undertaken from August 2011 to December 2012. Fifty patients who presented with rectal carcinoma were randomized to either robotic arm (RA) or open arm (OA) group. Both groups were matched for clinical stage and operation type. Technique and feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery in terms of operating time, estimated blood loss, margins status, total number of lymph nodes retrieved, hospital stay, conversion to open procedure, complications, and functional outcomes were analyzed. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RA than in the OA group (310 vs 246 min, P < 0.001) but was significantly reduced in the latter part of the robotic-assisted patients compared with the initial patients. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RA compared with the OA group (165.14 vs 406.04 ml, P < 0.001). None of the patients had margin positivity. The mean distal resection margin was significantly longer in the RA than in the OA group (3.6 vs 2.4 cm, P < 0.001). A total of 100 % of patients in the RA group had complete mesorectal excision while two patients in the OA group had incomplete mesorectal excision. The average number of retrieved lymph nodes was adequate for accurate staging. The number of lymph nodes removed by robotic method is slightly higher than the open method (16.88 vs 15.20) but with no statistical significance. Conversion rate was nil. The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RA group (7.52 vs 13.24 days, P < 0.001). Postoperative and functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Robotic-assisted surgery is an emerging technique in our country. Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery is safe with low conversion rates and acceptable morbidity and is oncologically feasible.

Improved perioperative and short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal operations

BACKGROUND

Robotic assistance may offer unique advantages over conventional laparoscopy in colorectal operations.

METHODS

This prospective observational study compared operative measures and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic abdominal and pelvic resections for benign and malignant disease.

RESULTS

From 2005 through 2012, 200 (58%) laparoscopic and 144 (42%) robotic operations were performed by a single surgeon. After adjustment for differences in demographics and disease processes using propensity score matching, all laparoscopic operations had a significantly shorter operative time (P < .01), laparoscopic left colectomies had a longer length of hospital stay (2009 and 2010: 6.5 vs 3.6 days, P = .01); and laparoscopic right colectomies had a higher risk for overall complications (P = .03) and postoperative ileus (P = .04). There were no significant differences in the outcomes of pelvic operations (P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional laparoscopy, some types of robotic-assisted colorectal operations may offer advantages regarding postoperative length of stay and perioperative complications.