Multicentre study of robotic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

The Review of Modified Intersphincteric Resection in the Treatment of Ultra-Low Rectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. In China, the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer are increasing, in which low rectal cancer is more common. Ultra-low rectal cancer refers to rectal cancer where the distance between the tumor and the anus is less than 5 cm, it accounts for about 70%-80% of rectal tumors. Intersphincteric resection (ISR), an important technical means for anal preservation of ultra-low rectal cancer, although could reduce the pain of patients during the surgical process, increase the anal preservation rate of patients and improve the life quality of patients, still has many adverse effects such as the high incidence of anorectal anastomotic leakage and high anterior resection syndrome. Many modified ISRs have emerged due to the limitations and adverse reactions of traditional ISR surgery. the purpose of this article is to review the progress of ISR surgery to improve its use in treatment.

Robotic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a cumulative sum analysis for the learning curve

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the learning curve of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 89 patients who underwent robot-assisted intersphincteric resection. All surgeries were performed by the same group of surgeons at our institution between June 2016 and April 2021. The learning curve was evaluated using a cumulative sum analysis and the best-fit curve. The different stages of the learning curve were compared based on patient characteristics and short-term clinical outcomes to evaluate their impact on clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

The minimum number of cases required to overcome the learning curve was 47. The learning curve was divided into the learning improvement and proficiency stages. Significant differences were observed in the operation time and the number of lymph nodes between the two stages (P < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss, first postoperative exhaust time, postoperative complications, 3-year progression-free survival, overall survival, and local recurrence-free survival (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer exhibits a learning curve that can be divided into two stages: namely, learning improvement and proficiency. Achieving proficiency requires a minimum of 47 surgical cases.

Robotic surgery is associated with a decreased risk of circumferential resection margin positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer undergoing mesorectal excision: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether robotic surgery (RS) decreases the risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) in patients with rectal cancer (RC) undergoing mesorectal excision (ME).

BACKGROUND

Although it is well known that CRM positivity affects postoperative outcomes in patients with RC undergoing ME, few studies have investigated whether RS is superior to conventional LS for the risk of CRM positivity.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature up to December 2022 to identify studies that compared the risk of CRM positivity between patients with RC undergoing robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity was analyzed using I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies, consisting of 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 propensity score matching (PSM) studies, involved a total of 9203 patients with RC who underwent ME were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that RS decreased the overall risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.82; 95 % CI, 0.73-0.92; P = 0.001; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS. Results of a meta-analysis of the 4 selected RCTs also showed that RS decreased the risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.62; 95 % CI, 0.43-0.91; P = 0.01; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that RS is associated with a decreased risk of CRM positivity compared with conventional LS in patients with RC undergoing ME.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-port versus multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether the da Vinci single-port system performs similarly to the previous multi-port system during complicated procedures, such as rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of single-port and multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 128 patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision between July 2020 and June 2022, of whom 84 (42 each: single-port versus multi-port) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Median tumor height was similar between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 5.9 ± 2.1 vs 5.6 ± 1.8 cm, P = .719). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed equally. The total operative time was less (160.0 ± 42.2 minutes vs 199.6 ± 78.6 minutes, P = .005), the total length of incision was shorter (4.0 ±0.3 vs 5.4 ± 0.7 cm, P = .003), postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2 ±1.7 vs 7.2 ±2.8 days, P = .050), and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 trended to be lower (7.3 ± 4.7 vs 8.9 ± 5.6 mg/L, P = .096) in the single-port group, compared with the multi-port group. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 11.9% vs 16.6%, P = .864). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the single-port and multi-port groups, respectively. The circumferential resection margins were positive in 1 patient in the multi-port group.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic total mesorectal excision were comparable to those of multi-port robotic TME. The single-port robot can be considered a surgical option for treating rectal cancer.

Revolutionizing sphincter preservation in ultra-low rectal cancer: exploring the potential of transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (taE-ISR): a propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

With the optimization of neoadjuvant treatment regimens, the indications for intersphincteric resection (ISR) have expanded. However, limitations such as unclear surgical field, impaired anal function, and failure of anal preservation still exist. Transanal total mesorectal excision can complement the drawbacks of ISR. Therefore, this study combined these two techniques and proposed transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (taE-ISR), aiming to explore the value of this novel technique in anal preservation for ultra-low rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four high-volume centres were involved. After 1:1 propensity score-matching, patients with ultra-low rectal cancer underwent taE-ISR ( n =90) or ISR ( n =90) were included. Baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, pathological results, and follow-up were compared between the two groups. A nomogram model was established to assess the potential risks of anal preservation.

RESULTS

The incidence of adjacent organ injury (0.0% vs. 5.6%, P =0.059), positive distal resection margin (1.1% vs. 8.9%, P =0.034), and incomplete specimen (2.2% vs. 13.3%, P =0.012) were lower in taE-ISR group. Moreover, the anal preservation rate was significantly higher in taE-ISR group (97.8% vs. 82.2%, P =0.001). Patients in the taE-ISR group showed a better disease-free survival ( P =0.044) and lower cumulative recurrence ( P =0.022) compared to the ISR group. Surgery procedure, tumour distance, and adjacent organ injury were factors influencing anal preservation in patients with ultra-low rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

taE-ISR technique was safe, feasible, and improved surgical quality, anal preservation rate and survival outcomes in ultra-low rectal cancer patients. It held significant clinical value and showed promising application prospects for anal preservation.

Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although several studies compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy, most of them reflect the outcomes of the utilisation of older generation robotic platforms. The aim of this study is to compare the financial and clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy within a public healthcare system, utilising a multi-quadrant platform.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy between January 2017 and June 2020 in a public quaternary centre were included. Demographic characteristics, baseline clinical, tumour and operative variables, perioperative, histopathological outcomes and costs were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. Simple linear regression and generalised linear model analyses with gamma distribution and log-link function were used to determine the impact of the surgical approach on overall costs.

RESULTS

During the study period, 113 patients underwent minimally invasive proctectomy. Of these, 81 (71.7%) underwent a robotic proctectomy. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate (2.5% versus 21.8%;P = 0.002) at the expense of longer operating times (284 ± 83.4 versus 243 ± 89.8 min;P = 0.025). Regarding financial outcomes, robotic surgery was associated with increased theatre costs (A$23,019 ± 8235 versus A$15,525 ± 6382; P < 0.001) and overall costs (A$34,350 ± 14,770 versus A$26,083 ± 12,647; P = 0.003). Hospitalisation costs were similar between both approaches. An ASA ≥ 3, non-metastatic disease, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, non-restorative resection, extended resection, and a robotic approach were identified as drivers of overall costs in the univariate analysis. However, after performing a multivariate analysis, a robotic approach was not identified as an independent driver of overall costs during the inpatient episode (P = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Robotic proctectomy was associated with increased theatre costs but not with increased overall inpatient costs within a public healthcare setting. Conversion was less common for robotic proctectomy at the expense of increased operating time. Larger studies will be needed to confirm these findings and examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic proctectomy to further justify its penetration in the public healthcare system.

Single-Port Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for the Treatment of Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Single-port (SP) system is designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery in a narrow space. We developed a new procedure of intersphincteric resection (ISR) using the SP platform and evaluated the technical safety and feasibility of this procedure for the treatment of very low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eleven rectal cancer patients who underwent SP robotic ISR between August 2020 and July 2021 were included. Patients' clinical characteristics, operative and pathologic findings of the patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The median tumor height was 3 cm (range, 2-4 cm). A single docking was performed, and the median docking time was 3 min 10 sec (range, 2 min 50 sec-3 min 30 sec). The median total operation time was 210 min (range, 150-280 min), and the median time of pelvic dissection was 57 min (range, 45-68 min). All patients presented with negative distal resection margins [median 1 cm (range, 0.5-2.0 cm)], and only one patient had less than 1mm of circumferential resection margin (0.9 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience suggests that SP robotic ISR is safe and feasible.

Operative and oncological outcomes after robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery, show little difference in clinical outcomes to justify the expense. We systematically reviewed and pooled evidence from studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection.

METHOD

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), and Cochrane databases were searched for studies between 1996 and 2021 comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgeries involving total mesorectal excision. Outcome measures included operative times, conversions to open, complications, recurrence and survival rates.

RESULTS

Fifty eligible studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections; three were randomized trials. Pooled results showed significantly longer operating times for robotic surgery but lower conversion and complications rates, shorter lengths of stay in hospital, better rates of complete mesorectal resection and better three-year overall survival. However, the low number of randomized studies makes most data subject to bias.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence supports the safety and ongoing use of robotic rectal cancer surgery, while further high-quality evidence is sought to justify the expense.

Technical insights to multivisceral resections using the da Vinci Xi

BACKGROUND

There have been few reports on the feasibility and safety of robotic multivisceral surgeries. The da Vinci Xi boasts significant upgrades that improve its applicability in combined resections. We report our early experience of multivisceral, multi-quadrant resections with the Xi system.

METHODS

Between May 2015 and August 2019, 13 multivisceral resections were performed. Patient demographics, procedural data, and perioperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The procedures were completed at a median operative time of 290 (range, 210-535) minutes. The median postoperative length of hospital stay was 3.5 (range, 2-7) days. There was one case of readmission for anastomotic leak, but no positioning injuries, external robot arm collisions or issues arising from trocar position. There were no cases of perioperative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Multivisceral resections can be safely accomplished using the Xi. Further studies are necessary to ascertain whether there are benefits of the robotic approach over conventional laparoscopy in these complex cases.

Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer, a look back to look forward: a personal history

While laparoscopic colonoscopy was reported by several surgeons in the early 1990s, laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been attempted sporadically since 1992 in Korea. Then, in 2000, the Korean Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group was established. Didactic lectures, videos, and live surgery by the early pioneers of this group inspired and helped many surgeons initiate the laparoscopic approach to the treatment of colorectal disease. As a result, the penetration rate of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery nationwide is increasing to 80% in 2018. As a witness on this journey, I would like to share my personal minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery history and perspectives on future surgery in this field.

Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates

Despite innovative advancements, distally located rectal cancer remains a critical disease of challenging management. The crucial location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin (CRM) that tends to involve the anal sphincter complex and surrounding organs, with a high incidence of delayed anastomotic complications and the risk of the pelvic sidewall or rarely inguinal lymph node metastases. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of other issues beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) performance. For decades, the concept of extralevator abdominoperineal resection to avoid compromised CRM has been introduced. However, the complexity of deep pelvic dissection with poor visualization in low-lying rectal cancer has led to transanal TME. In contrast, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise. Significant tumor regression after NCRT and complete pathologic response also permit applying the watch-and-wait protocol in some cases, now with more solid evidence. This review article will introduce the current surgical treatment options, their indication and technical details, and recent oncologic and functional outcomes. Lastly, the novel characteristics of distal rectal cancer, such as pelvic sidewall and inguinal lymph node metastases, will be discussed along with its tailored and individualized treatment approach.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Oncological Outcomes

The treatment of rectal cancer is complex and involves specialized multidisciplinary care, although the tenet is still rooted in a high-quality total mesorectal excision. The robotic platform is one of many tools in the arsenal to assist dissection in the low pelvis. This article is a comprehensive review of the oncological outcome comparing robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, with a particular focus on total mesorectal excision. There is no statistical difference in total mesorectal grade, circumferential margin, distal margin, and lymph node harvest. Survival data are less mature, but there is also no difference in disease-free or overall survival between the two techniques. Although additional randomized trials are still needed to validate these findings, both techniques are currently acceptable in the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, and surgeon preference is paramount to safe and optimal resection.

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety Between da Vinci Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: The intersphincteric resection (ISR) is beneficial for saving patients' anus to a large extent and restoring original bowel continuity. Laparoscopic ISR (L-ISR) has its drawbacks, such as two-dimensional images, low motion flexibility, and unstable lens. Recently, da Vinci robotic ISR (R-ISR) is increasingly used worldwide. The purpose of this article is to compare the feasibility, safety, oncological outcomes, and clinical efficacy of R-ISR vs. L-ISR for low rectal cancer. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to identify comparative studies of R-ISR vs. L-ISR. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were extracted. Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Five studies were included. In total, 510 patients were included, of whom 273 underwent R-ISR and 237 L-ISR. Compared with L-ISR, R-ISR has significantly lower estimated intraoperative blood loss (MD = -23.31, 95% CI [-41.98, -4.64], P = 0.01), longer operative time (MD = 51.77, 95% CI [25.68, 77.86], P = 0.0001), hospitalization days (MD = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.10, 0.94], P < 0.00001), and postoperative urinary complications (RR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.16, 0.82], P = 0.02). Conclusions: The potential benefits of R-ISR are considered as a safe and feasible alternative choice for the treatment of low rectal tumors.

Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection. The application of the robotic approach to ISR (RISR) has been described by few specialized surgical teams with several differences regarding approach and technique. This review aims to discuss the technical aspects of RISR by evaluating point by point each surgical controversy. Moreover, a systematic review was performed to report the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RISR. Postoperative morbidities after RISR are acceptable. RISR allows adequate surgical margins and adequate oncological outcomes. RISR may result in severe bowel and genitourinary dysfunction affecting the quality of life in a portion of patients.

Early and late clinico-pathologic outcomes of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched comparison of robotic and laparoscopic approaches

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the early and late clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) using propensity score matching.

METHODS

The retrospective study included 489 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic TME for rectal cancer between June 2011 and December 2018. Overall, 131 matched pairs were generated via propensity scoring matching according to several factors.

RESULTS

The matched groups had generally similar demographic characteristics. The robotic TME group had significantly longer mean times for the total operation and the TME procedure. There were no significant differences in terms of the other procedure-specific parameters, although the robotic TME group had significantly shorter duration of hospitalisation and shorter duration of need for postoperative indwelling urinary catheter. Moreover, the robotic TME group had non-significantly lower rates of late postoperative complications and reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Early and late clinico-pathologic outcomes of robotic TME were comparable to that of laparoscopic TME.

Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Versus Transanal Low Anterior Resection: 3-Year Oncologic Results for a Population-Based Cohort in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision are the minimally invasive techniques used most for rectal cancer surgery. Because data regarding oncologic results are lacking, this study aimed to compare these three techniques while taking the learning curve into account.

METHODS

This retrospective population-based study cohort included all patients between 2015 and 2017 who underwent a low anterior resection at 11 dedicated centers that had completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) during a 3-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes were 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Cox-regression.

RESULTS

The 617 patients enrolled in the study included 252 who underwent a laparoscopic resection, 205 who underwent a robot-assisted resection, and 160 who underwent a transanal low anterior resection. The oncologic outcomes were equal between the three techniques. The 3-year OS rate was 90% for laparoscopic resection, 90.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 87.6% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year DFS rate was 77.8% for laparoscopic resection, 75.8% for robot-assisted resection, and 78.8% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year local recurrence rate was in 6.1% for laparoscopic resection, 6.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 5.7% for transanal procedures. Cox-regression did not show a significant difference between the techniques while taking confounders into account.

CONCLUSION

The oncologic results during the 3-year follow-up were good and comparable between laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal technique at experienced centers. These techniques can be performed safely in experienced hands.

Anus-Preserving Surgery in Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: A Perspective on Oncological Safety of Intersphincteric Resection

The surgical management of low-lying rectal cancer, within 5 cm from the anal verge (AV), is challenging due to the possibility, or not, to preserve the anus with its sphincter muscles maintaining oncological safety. The standardization of total mesorectal excision, the adoption of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the implementation of rectal magnetic resonance imaging, and the evolution of mechanical staplers have increased the rate of anus-preserving surgeries. Moreover, extensive anatomy and physiology studies have increased the understanding of the complexity of the deep pelvis. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) was introduced nearly three decades ago as the ultimate anus-preserving surgery. The definition and indication of ISR have changed over time. The adoption of the robotic platform provides excellent perioperative results with no differences in oncological outcomes. Pushing the boundaries of anus-preserving surgeries has risen doubts on oncological safety in order to preserve function. This review critically discusses the oncological safety of ISR by evaluating the anatomical characteristics of the deep pelvis, the clinical indications, the role of distal and circumferential resection margins, the role of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the outcomes between surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic), the comparison with abdominoperineal resection, the risk factors for oncological outcomes and local recurrence, the patterns of local recurrences after ISR, considerations on functional outcomes after ISR, and learning curve and surgical education on ISR.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robot Surgery Shows Similar Long-term Oncologic Outcomes as Laparoscopic Surgery for Mid/Lower Rectal Cancer but Is Beneficial to ypT3/4 After Preoperative Chemoradiation

BACKGROUND

The long-term oncologic efficacy of robotic surgery for patients with rectal cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate survival outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision for mid/low rectal cancer compared with those of laparoscopic surgery.

DESIGN

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis.

SETTING

The data of a tertiary academic institution was reviewed.

PATIENTS

A total of 705 patients underwent laparoscopic (n = 415) or robotic (n = 118) low anterior resection for stage I to III mid/low rectal cancer. A total of 118 patients in each group were selected from the original data set by using propensity score matching.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were 5-year disease-free survival, distant recurrence, and local recurrence.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were balanced in terms of basic characteristics, perioperative treatment, and pathological stage. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 80.5% in the laparoscopic group and 87.6% in the robotic group (p = 0.118). The 5-year distant recurrence rate and local recurrence rate were 19.0% and 4.2% in the laparoscopic group and 10.0% and 3.7% in the robotic group (p = 0.048 and p = 0.846). In a subgroup of patients who received preoperative chemoradiation and had ypT3/4 tumors, the 5-year distant recurrence and local recurrence rates were 44.8% and 5.0% in the laparoscopic group and 9.8% and 9.8% in the robotic group (p = 0.014 and p = 0.597).

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective nature of the study, potential selection bias with distinct demographics between the groups, and relatively small number of cases are limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for mid/low rectal cancer shows similar long-term oncologic outcomes with laparoscopic surgery but is beneficial to a certain group of patients with advanced rectal cancer with poor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Additional studies are required to confirm our results. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B546.

LA CIRUGA ROBTICA MUESTRA RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS A LARGO PLAZO SIMILARES A LA CIRUGA LAPAROSCPICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO MEDIO / BAJO, PERO ES VENTAJOSA EN CASOS YPT POSTQUIMIORADIOTERAPIA PREOPERATORIA

ANTECEDENTES:Se desconoce la eficacia oncológica a largo plazo de la cirugía robótica en pacientes con cáncer de recto.OBJETIVO:La finalidad de nuestro estudio fue el investigar los resultados de supervivencia de la escisión mesorrectal total robótica en casos de cáncer de recto medio / bajo en comparación con los de la cirugía laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Realizamos un análisis retrospectivo mono-céntrico.AJUSTE:Se revisaron los datos de una institución académica terciaria.PACIENTES:705 pacientes fueron sometidos a resección anterior baja laparoscópica (n = 415) o robótica (n = 118) para cáncer de recto medio / bajo en estadio I-III. Se seleccionó un total de 118 pacientes en cada grupo del conjunto de datos original utilizando el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión.RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:Éstos fueron, la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años, la recurrencia a distancia y la recurrencia local.RESULTADOS:Los dos grupos estaban equilibrados en cuanto a características básicas, tratamiento péri-operatorio y estadío patológico. La tasa de sobrevida libre de enfermedad a 5 años fue del 80,5% en el grupo laparoscópico y del 87,6% en el grupo robótico (p = 0,118). La tasa de recurrencia a distancia a 5 años y la tasa de recurrencia local fueron 19,0% y 4,2% en el grupo laparoscópico y 10,0% y 3,7% en el grupo robótico, respectivamente (p = 0,048 y p= 0,846). En el subgrupo de pacientes que recibieron quimio-radioterapia pré-operatoria y tenían tumores ypT3-4, las tasas de recidiva a distancia a 5 años y recidiva local fueron 44,8% y 5,0% en el grupo laparoscópico y 9,8% y 9,8% en el grupo robótico, respectivamente (p = 0.014 y p = 0.597).LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva del estudio, el posible sesgo en la selección con datos demográficos distintos entre los grupos y un número relativamente pequeño de casos son limitaciones importantes.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía robótica para el cáncer de recto medio / bajo muestra resultados oncológicos a largo plazo similares con la cirugía laparoscópica, pero es mas beneficiosa en ciertos grupos de cáncer de recto avanzado con mala respuesta a la quimio-radioterapia neoadyuvante. Se requieren más estudios para confirmar nuestros resultados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B546.).

Complete intersphincteric longitudinal muscle excision May Be key to reducing local recurrence during intersphincteric resection

BACKGROUND

Although total mesorectal excision (TME) is regarded as a standard procedure for rectal cancer, technical definition and evaluation method have not yet been investigated for intersphincteric resection (ISR). This study was performed to introduce a complete ISR procedure, and to assess whether total intersphincteric longitudinal muscle excision (TILME) facilitated the completeness of ISR and reduced recurrence.

METHODS

A total of 1080 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent robot-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) over 10 years were consecutively enrolled. Propensity-score matching of the two LAR groups (ISR vs LAR group, 1:1) and three ISR subgroups (partial vs subtotal vs total ISR subgroup, 2:2:1) was performed by strict adjustment of baseline characteristics. Archived specimens and video-/photo-records were reevaluated to examine completeness of TILME.

RESULTS

Complete-TILME was performed in 84.5% of patients who underwent ISR. Multivariate analysis showed that incomplete-TILME was the only parameter independently associated with increased 5-year cumulative local recurrence (odds ratio = 23.385; 95% confidence interval = 1.492-366.421; p = 0.03), and that incomplete-TILME was independently associated with adipose tissue surrounding the intersphincteric longitudinal muscle, coloanal anastomosis, and total ISR (p < 0.001-0.05). Although mean incontinence scores and anorectal manometry deteriorated to some degree 12-24 months after surgery in all patients, they remained acceptable. The 5-year cumulative DFS (74.1% vs 60%, p = 0.18) and OS (85.9% vs 70%, p = 0.10) rates tended to be higher in patients with complete than incomplete-TILME.

CONCLUSIONS

The completeness of TILME appears to be an independent indicator of complete ISR, reducing local recurrence following lower rectal cancer surgery.

An initial experience with a novel technique of single-port robotic resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci single-port (SP) system is designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery in a narrow space. We developed a new procedure of rectal resection using this system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of SP robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer patients based on our initial experience.

METHODS

A study was conducted on consecutive patients with mid or low rectal cancer who had SP robotic resection at our institution between July and September 2020. The demographic characteristics, perioperative data, and pathology results of the patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 5 patients (3 males, 2 females, median age 57 years (range 36-73 years). The median tumor height from the anal verge was 4 cm (range 3-5 cm). Two patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy for advanced rectal cancer. A single docking was conducted, and the median docking time was 4 min 20 s (range 3 min 30 s to 5 min). The median total operation time was 195 min (range 155-240 min), and the median time of pelvic dissection was 45 min (range 36-62 min). All patients had circumferential and distal tumor-free resection margins. One patient experienced an anastomosis-related complication. The median duration of hospital stay was 7 days (range 7-8 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience suggests that SP robotic rectal resection is safe and feasible. Further clinical trials comparing SP and multiport robotic rectal resection should be conducted to verify the superior aspects of this new system.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Risk factors for local recurrence and long term survival after minimally invasive intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: Multivariate analysis in 161 patients

INTRODUCTION

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anal-sparing technique as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection in selected patients. Oncological safety is still debated. This study analyses long-term oncological results and evaluates risk factors for local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS) after minimally-invasive ISR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective single-center data were collected from a prospectively maintained colorectal database. A total of 161 patients underwent ISR between 2008 and 2018. OS and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank test). Risk factors for OS and LRFS were assessed with Cox-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 55 months. LR occurred in 18 patients. OS and LRFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96%, 91%, and 80% and 96%, 89%, and 87%, respectively. Tumor size (p = 0.035) and clinical T-stage (p = 0.029) were risk factors for LRFS on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, tumor size (HR 2.546 (95% CI: 0.976-6.637); p = 0.056) and clinical T-stage (HR 3.296 (95% CI: 0.941-11.549); p = 0.062) were not significant. Preoperative CEA (p < 0.001), pathological T-stage (p = 0.033), pathological N-stage (p = 0.016) and adjuvant treatment (p = 0.008) were prognostic factors for OS on univariate analysis. Preoperative CEA (HR 4.453 (95% CI: 2.015-9.838); p < 0.001) was a prognostic factor on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the oncological safety of minimally-invasive ISR for locally advanced low-lying rectal tumors when performed in experienced centers. Despite not a risk factor for LR, tumor size and, locally advanced T-stage with anterior involvement should be carefully evaluated for optimal surgical strategy. Preoperative CEA is a prognostic factor for OS.

Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies

Background

RCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model.

Results

Fifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) –1.11 (95 per cent c.i. –1.86 to –0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD –0.28 (–1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively).

Conclusion

Results of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Latest Advances in Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Background

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been a preferable alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal preservation in patients with low rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ISR and robotic ISR have been widely used with the proposal of 2 cm or even 1 cm rule of distal free margin and the development of minimally invasive technology. The aim of this review was to describe the newest advancements of ISR.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify studies on ISR techniques, preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT), complications, oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes and thereby to summarize relevant information and controversies involved in ISR.

Results

Although PCRT is employed to avoid positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and decrease local recurrence, it tends to engender damage of anorectal function and patients' quality of life (QoL). Common complications after ISR include anastomotic leakage (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), urinary retention, fistula, pelvic sepsis, and prolapse. CRM involvement is the most important predictor for local recurrence. Preoperative assessment and particularly rectal endosonography are essential for selecting suitable patients. Anal dysfunction is associated with age, PCRT, location and growth of anastomotic stoma, tumour stage, and resection of internal sphincter.

Conclusions

The ISR technique seems feasible for selected patients with low rectal cancer. However, the postoperative QoL as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Provides Advantageous Outcomes Over Laparoscopic Approach: Results From a Large Retrospective Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare short term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic rectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND

Significant benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over laparoscopy have yet to be demonstrated. Operative time and direct institutional cost seem in favor of the laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients operated on for rectal cancer with a mini-invasive approach at Mayo Clinic from 2005 to 2018. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the difference in postoperative morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approach. Multivariable models for odds to complications and prolonged (≥6 days) length of stay were built.

RESULTS

A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery was 317 (52.8%). The 2 groups were similar in respect to age, sex, and body mass index. Laparoscopic surgery was correlated to shorter operative time (214 vs 324 minutes; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing robotic surgery had a lower overall complications rate (37.2% vs 51.2%; P < 0.001). Robotic surgery was found to be the most protective factor [odds ratio (OR) 0.485; P = 0.006] for odds to complications. The event of a complication (OR 9.33; P < 0.001) and conversion to open surgery (OR 3.095; P = 0.002) were identified as risk factors for prolonged length of stay whereas robotic surgery (OR 0.62; P = 0.027) was the only independent protective factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic rectal cancer surgery is strongly associated with better short-term outcomes over laparoscopic surgery.

Oncologic safety and bowel function after ultralow anterior resection with or without intersphincteric resection for low lying rectal cancer: Comparative cross sectional study

BACKGROUND

Despite acceptable oncologic outcomes of sphincter preserving surgeries for low rectal cancer, bowel dysfunction occurs. This study aimed to compare the oncologic and functional bowel outcomes between ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) and intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-four patients who underwent ULAR with or without ISR for low rectal cancer between December 2010 and May 2018 were included. The Wexner and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) scores were used to evaluate the bowel function of patients. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between patients.

RESULTS

The ISR group had higher incidence of major fecal incontinence than the ULAR group (75.9% vs 49.3%; P = .016). The median Wexner score decreased from 12 to 9 (P = .062) at 1-year follow-up. However, the frequency and urgency/soilage subscales of MSKCC score improved significantly in the ULAR group. ISR and follow-up interval less than 1-year significantly increased the major incontinence risk. The OS in the ULAR and ISR groups was 91.4% and 91.7%. Whereas the DFS in both groups was 79% and 79.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ULAR and ISR are comparable in oncologic outcomes. Severe bowel dysfunctions and major incontinence were noted in ISR group. Careful selection of patients is mandatory.

Robotic right colonic resection. Is the robotic third arm a game-changer?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches have produces relevant advancements in the pre/intra/postoperative outcomes. The conventional laparoscopic approach presents similar oncological results in comparison to laparotomic approaches. Despite these evidences, a considerable part of the colorectal operations are still being performed in an open way. This is in part because traditional laparoscopy may have some hurdles and a long learning curve to reach mastery. The robotic technology may help in increasing the MIS penetrance in colorectal surgery. The use of the R3 can potentially increase the number of surgical options available.

METHODS

In this retrospective case series, after a long robotic colorectal experience connected to a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we present our results regarding a subset of colorectal patients who underwent robotic right colonic resections performed, all by a single surgeon (P.C.G.), using the R3 according to our standardized technique.

RESULTS

Out of all the robotic colorectal operations performed, this sub-sample sample included 33 patients: 21 males and 12 females. The age range was between 51 and 95 years old. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was between 21.6 to 43.1. The conversion rate to laparoscopy or to open surgery has been 0%. No intraoperative complications have been registered. The postoperative complications rates are reported in this manuscript. The perfusion check of the anastomosis by Near-infrared ICG (Indocyanine Green) enhanced fluorescence has been used. In 11.2% of the sample, the site of the anastomosis has been changed after ICG-Test. Moreover, when the ICG perfusion test has been performed no leakage occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This subset of patients suggests the potential role of R3 and the benefits correlated to robotic surgery. In fact, the laparoscopic approach uses mostly a medial to lateral mobilization. Indeed, during laparoscopic surgery an early right colon mobilization may create problems in the surgical field visualization. In robotic surgery, R3 can lift upwards the cecum/ascending colon/hepatic flexure exposing, in doing so, the anatomical structures. Hence, we can use also the same approach of the open surgery (where the first step is usually the mobilization of the ascending colon mesentery). In other words, the R3 offers more operative options in terms of surgical pathways maintaining at the same time good perioperative outcomes. However, more studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Laparoscopic Ultra Low Anterior Resection: Single Center, 6-Year Study

Background: This study represents a prospective analysis of a series of laparoscopic ultra low anterior resection (ULAR) done at a laparoscopic surgical center to assess the surgical outcome, oncological efficacy, and quality of life after surgery. Methods: Over a period of 6 years (2013-2018), 43 patients aged between 40 and 68 years, with very low rectal cancers (3-6 cm from the anal verge), within T3N1M0 stage, assessed by positron emission tomography-computed tomography and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by laparoscopic ULAR and simultaneous diversion ileostomy. Results: The overall complication rate was low and there was an overall leak rate of 9.3% with a radiological leak (Grade A) in 3 of the 43 patients (7%), but only 1 (2.3%) patient required a local lavage and a resuturing for secondary hemorrhage. Recurrence was seen in 2/43 (4.7%), one of whom had a conversion to abdominoperineal resection. The other had distant metastasis and refused further treatment. The functional outcome is assessed in 41 (95.3%) patients by low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score and a reasonable quality of life with major LARS was seen in only 7.3% of the patients at a follow-up ranging from 1 to 6 years. Conclusion: The nCRT followed by laparoscopic ULAR is a feasible option for operable very low rectal cancers and is associated with minimal postoperative events, a low local recurrence and less incidence of LARS.

Operative technique in robotic rectal resection

A still too high percentage of the colorectal resections are currently performed by open technique. This in part because laparoscopy has some technical hurdles: not ideal ergonomics, poor control on the traction exerted by the Assistant, long/steep learning curve, confined dexterity, low tactile feedback, hand-tremor and 2D vision with a not completely stable camera. The robotic approach, given the increased surgical dexterity and the better surgical view, may be used to solve the laparoscopic downsides (in particular in the most complex cases). In the present work, after an extensive robotic experience and a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we show our operative steps for the robotic rectal resection. The aim is to propose a model to standardize the surgical technique and potentially pave the way for the acquisition of more reproducible data among different centers. This proposal may be also a technical guide to learn the robotic way and also for the expert surgeons as an adjunct in the teaching strategy.

Mechanotechnical faults and particular issues of anastomotic complications following robot-assisted anterior resection in 968 rectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

As most risk factors for anastomotic complications (AC) in rectal cancer patients appear to be noncorrectable, it is needed to find the correctable causes. Additionally, the outcomes of indocyanine-green fluorescence imaging (IFI) and robot-stapled anastomosis have yet been undetermined.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed 968 consecutive patients with rectal cancer, who underwent curative robot-assisted anterior resections between 2010 and 2018. IFI parameters and stapling features in the surgical records were reviewed, and reconfirmed.

RESULTS

AC occurred in 54 patients (5.6%), 34 (3.5%) with anastomotic leakage (AL) and 24 (2.5%) with anastomotic stenosis (AS). Mechanotechnical faults including defective stapling configurations, including angles lesser than or equal to 150° and outer deviation (more than half from the center of the circle) of linear staples, between the two linear staples were independently associated with AL (P < .001 each). IFI significantly reduced AL rate (2.5% vs 5.3%, P = .029) and AS rate (2% vs 18.8%, P = .006), respectively. Robot linear stapling enabled to maintain the obtuse angle during consecutive staplings and reduced console time. AL and AS were independent risk factors for disease-free survival (P = .02) and local recurrence (P = .03), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

AC were associated with some correctable causes, namely, mechanotechnical errors and lack of use of IFI.

Operative technique in robotic left colonic resection

Minimally invasive techniques have changed the clinical practice in general surgery and provided an improvement of outcomes. Laparoscopic and open surgery have similar oncological outcomes in the colorectal field. Those findings have been proven by prospective randomized multicenter trials and systematic reviews. However, some colorectal operations are still being performed by the open approach. This is partially related to the technical hurdles of the laparoscopic approach (particularly for more complex cases). Robotic surgery can be beneficial in overcoming the laparoscopic hurdles and limitations. Indeed, given the improved dexterity, the 3D stereotactic magnified view (with the camera controlled directly by the surgeon), the tremor filtering technology and the 7 degrees of liberty of the surgical instruments can guarantee a more accurate surgical dissection and tissue manipulation. Herein, after a large robotic experience in this field connected to a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we present our approach to robotic left colonic resection with routine splenic flexure mobilization. This approach may be helpful to get more reproducible results, it may be a technical guide and also an additional training tool for surgical residents.

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.

Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer in Japan

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate sphincter-preserving procedure for low rectal cancer. A questionnaire about the standardization of ISR was given to 2125 patients who underwent curative ISR for low rectal cancer between 2005 and 2012 at 127 affiliated institutions of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR), and the results were compared with the results of a systematic review. The findings revealed that although mortality and morbidity were relatively low and the survival rate after ISR was good, the rates of local recurrence and postoperative fecal incontinence were relatively high. The radicality of ISR was compared with that of abdominoperineal resection and low anterior resection using the propensity score matching prognosis analysis of patients in the JSCCR nationwide registry. The local recurrence rate was significantly higher after ISR, and especially high in patients with T3 (invasion into the external anal sphincter) and T4 disease. These results provide evidence about the factors related to fecal incontinence after ISR. As measures for the standardization of ISR, it is important to reconfirm that ISR is not indicated for patients with cT3 and cT4 disease and those with poor preoperative defecatory function, based on the ISR indication criteria.

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.

Intersphincteric Resection for Patients With Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Oncological and Functional Outcomes

The aim of this review is to evaluate the outcomes after an intersphincteric resection (ISR) for patients with low-lying rectal cancer. Reports published in the literature regarding surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of an ISR were reviewed. The morbidity after an ISR was 7.7%–32%, and anastomotic leakage was the most common adverse event. Local recurrence rates ranged from 0% to 12%, 5-year overall survival rates ranged from 62% to 92%, and rates of major incontinence ranged from 0% to 25.8% after an ISR. An ISR is a safe procedure for sphincter-saving rectal surgery in patients with very low rectal cancer; it does not compromise the oncological outcomes of the resection and is a valuable alternative to an abdominoperineal resection. While the functional outcomes after an ISR were found to be acceptable, the long-term functional outcome and quality of life still require careful investigation. ISRs have been performed with surgical and oncologic safety on patients with low-lying rectal cancer. However, patients must be selected very carefully for an ISR, considering the associated functional derangement and the limited extent of the resection.

Critical and Challenging Issues in the Surgical Management of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer

Despite innovative advancements, the management of distally located rectal cancer (RC) remains a formidable endeavor. The critical location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin that tends to involve the sphincters and surrounding organs, pelvic lymph node metastasis, and anastomotic complications. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of issues beyond the performance of total mesorectal excision (TME). For decades, abdominoperineal resection had been the standard of care for low-lying RC; however, its association with high rates of tumor recurrence, tumor perforation, and poorer survival has stimulated the development of novel surgical techniques and modifications, such as extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Similarly, difficult dissections and poor visualization, especially in obese patients with low-lying tumors, have led to the development of transanal TME or the "bottom-to-up" approach. Additionally, while neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise, functional outcomes remain an issue. Nevertheless, neoadjuvant treatment can lead to significant tumor regression and complete pathological response, permitting the utilization of organ-preserving strategies. At present, an East and West dualism pervades the management of lateral lymph node metastasis, thereby calling for a more global and united approach. Moreover, with the increasing importance of quality of life, a tailored, individualized treatment approach is of utmost importance when taking into account oncologic and anticipated functional outcomes.

Robotic Colorectal Resection With and Without the Use of the New Da Vinci Table Motion: A Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Table Motion (dVTM) is a new device that enables patients to be repositioned with instruments in place within the abdomen, and without undocking the robot. The present study was designed to compare operative and short-term outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery with the da Vinci Xi system, with or without use of the dVTM.

METHODS

Ten patients underwent robotic colorectal resection for cancer with the use of dVTM (Xi-dVTM group) between May 2015 and October 2015 at our center. The intraoperative and short-term clinical outcome were compared, using a case-control methodology (propensity scores approach to create 1:2 matched pairs), with a similar group of patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery for cancer without the use of the dVTM device (Xi-only group).

RESULTS

Overall robotic operative time was shorter in the Xi-dVTM group ( P = .04). Operations were executed fully robotic in all Xi-dVTM cases, while 2 cases of the Xi-only group required conversion to open surgery because of bulky tumors and difficult exposure. Postoperative medical complications were higher in the Xi-only group ( P = .024).

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary experience, the use of the new dVTM with the da Vinci Xi in colorectal surgery, by overcoming the limitations of the fixed positions of the patient, enhanced the workflow and resulted in improved exposure of the operative field. Further studies with a greater number of patients are needed to confirm these benefits of the dVTM-da Vinci Xi robotically assisted colorectal surgery.

Surgical technique in robotic right colonic resection. How we do it: operative steps and surgical video

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has produced an important improvement in terms of peri-operative outcomes. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery presents comparable outcomes vs. open approach from an oncological standpoint. However, there are some technical challenges/hurdles that laparoscopy may have. Worldwide there are still too many colonic/rectal operations carried out by the open approach. The robotic technology may be useful in solving some of the potential laparoscopic issues and potentially it may increase the number of procedures performed in a minimally invasive way. This is a description of our standardized operative technique for Robotic Right Colonic Resection. Conceivably, this manuscript may be useful to collect more repeatable data in the future. Moreover, it might be a guide to learn the robotic technique and also for the expert surgeons as an additional tool which they may find useful during their teaching activity. In this manuscript, taking advantage of the long and extensive expertise in minimally invasive colorectal resections, connected to a robotic experience started by Giulianotti in October 2000, we present our standardized technique for the robotic right colonic resection. The currently available literature data have proven that robotic colorectal surgery is safe/feasible. From the literature data, and from our experience as well, we think that these are the following main points: 1) the right colectomy is often an operation which can be performed in a relatively simple way even with traditional laparoscopy. However, the robotic approach is easier to standardize and this operation is very useful from a teaching standpoint in order to master multiple robotic surgical skills (that can be applied in more complex colorectal operations); 2) the robotic surgery may increase the MIS penetrance in this field. 3) the robotic third arm (R3) is an important technical advantage which can potentially increase the range of surgical options available; 4) the robotic technology is relatively recent. Most of the available data are retrospective and there is literature heterogenity (this affects also the conclusions of the currently available meta-analysis results, which sometimes are conflicting); 5) we need more data from prospective randomized well-powered studies (with standardized technique). Achieving a standardized technical approach will be essential in robotic colorectal surgery.

A New Prediction Model for Local Recurrence After Curative Rectal Cancer Surgery: Development and Validation as an Asian Collaborative Study

BACKGROUND

Local recurrence is one of the remaining problems in rectal and rectosigmoid cancer, and it is sometimes difficult to treat.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore various factors that are highly related to local recurrence and to develop a new prediction model for local recurrence after curative resection.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study SETTINGS:: This study was conducted at 2 academic hospitals in Japan and Korea.

PATIENTS

A total of 2237 patients with stage I to III rectal and rectosigmoid cancer who underwent a curative operation with a negative circumferential margin were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical treatment was the intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Local recurrence was the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 1232 patients were selected, and rectosigmoid cancer with rare local recurrence (2/221) was excluded. A different set of 792 patients with rectal cancer were chosen for validation. Multivariate analysis showed the following factors as significant for local recurrence: poorly differentiated tumor (HR, 11.2; 95% CI, 4.5-28.0), tumor depth (HR, 5.0), lymph node metastasis (HR, 4.1), operative procedure (HR, 3.2), postoperative complications (HR, 2.9), tumor location (HR, 2.6), and CEA level (HR, 2.4); a new prediction score was created by using these factors. A poorly differentiated tumor was assigned 2 points, and all other factors were assigned 1 point each. Patients who scored more than 5 points (n = 21) were judged as "high risk," with a 2-year local recurrence rate of 66.5%. The new predictive model could also separate the patients into different risk groups in the validation set. The high-risk group had higher recurrence rates than medium- and low-risk groups (2-year local recurrence rate: 41%, 15%, and 2.1%).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective nature and potential for selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven factors were shown to be significantly correlated with the local recurrence of rectal cancer, and the usefulness of this new prediction model was demonstrated. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A429.

Novel anal sphincter saving procedure with partial excision of levator-ani muscle in rectal cancer invading ipsilateral pelvic floor

Purpose

Tumors at the level of the anorectal junction had required total levator-ani muscle excision to achieve an adequate resection margin. However, in the cases of tumor invading ipsilateral levator-ani muscle and intact external sphincter, en bloc resection of rectum with levator-ani muscle including tumor would be possible. This hemilevator excision (HLE) technique enables preserving the anal sphincter function while obtaining oncologic clearance and avoiding permanent colostomy in those patients. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes and feasibility of HLE.

Methods

Data on 13 consecutive patients who underwent HLE for pathologically proven low rectal cancer were retrospectively collected. All 13 patients presented low rectal cancer at the anorectal ring level that was suspected to invade or abut to the ipsilateral side of the levator-ani muscle.

Results

A secure resection margin was achieved in all cases, and anastomotic leakage occurred in 2 patients. During follow-up, 3 patients experienced tumor recurrence (2 systemic and 1 local). Among 6 patients who underwent diverting ileostomy closure after the index operation, 2 complained of fecal incontinence. The other 4 patients without fecal incontinence showed <10 times of bowel movement per day. Accessing their incontinence scale, mean Wexner score was 9.4.

Conclusion

HLE is a novel sphincter-preserving technique that can be a treatment option for low rectal cancer invading ipsilateral levator-ani muscle, which has been an indication for abdominoperineal resection (APR) or extralevator APR. However, the long-term oncologic and functional outcomes of this procedure still need to be assessed to confirm its validity.

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.