Laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal adenocarcinoma

Evolution of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: update from the national cancer database

BACKGROUND

As the use of minimally invasive techniques in colorectal surgery has become increasingly prevalent, concerns remain about the oncologic effectiveness and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive low anterior resection (MI-LAR) for the treatment of rectal cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

The 2010-2015 National Cancer Database (NCDB) Participant Data Use File was queried for patients undergoing elective open LAR (OLAR) or MI-LAR for rectal adenocarcinoma. A 1:1 propensity match was performed on the basis of demographics, comorbidity, and tumor characteristics. Outcomes were compared between groups and Cox proportional hazard modeling was performed to identify independent predictors of mortality. A subset analysis was performed on high-volume academic centers.

RESULTS

35,809 patients undergoing LAR were identified of whom 18,265 (51.0%) underwent MI-LAR. After propensity matching, patients receiving MI-LAR were less likely to have a positive circumferential radial margin (CRM) (5.5% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.0094) or a positive distal margin (3.6% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.0022) and had decreased 90-day all-cause mortality (2.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.0238). MI-LAR resulted in decreased hospital length of stay (5 vs. 6 days, p < 0.0001) but a greater rate of 30-day readmission (7.6% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.0054). Long-term overall survival was improved with MI-LAR (79% vs. 76%, p < 0.0001). Cox proportional hazard modeling demonstrated a decreased risk of mortality with MI-LAR (HR 0.859, 95% CI 0.788-0.937).

CONCLUSION

MI-LAR is associated with improvement in CRM clearance and long-term survival. In the hands of experienced surgeons with advanced laparoscopy skills, MI-LAR appears safe and effective technique for the management of rectal cancer.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

We assessed feasibility, short-term oncologic safety, and short-term outcomes in robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

From March 2008 to June 2009, 50 patients with proven middle/lower rectal adenocarcinoma underwent minimally invasive TME; 25 received R-TME. The groups were balanced (R-TME versus L-TME) in terms of age (median 69 versus 62 years; p = 0.8), disease stage, and body mass index (median 23 versus 26.5 kg/m(2); p = 0.06). There were 37 (74%) anterior resections and 13 (26%) abdominoperineal resections. Twenty-three (46%) patients received preoperative radiochemotherapy. The robot was a four-arm Da Vinci S (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

RESULTS

Median operating time (R-TME versus L-TME) was 240 versus 237 min (p = 0.2); first bowel movement was 2 versus 3 days (p = 0.5); median hospital stay was 6.5 versus 6 days (p = 0.4). Major complications with reoperation were two in R-TME (one anastomotic leakage, one small bowel perforation) and three in L-TME (one colonic ischemia, two anastomotic leakage). Postoperative complications were 16% versus 24% (p = 0.5). A median of 18 versus 17 (p = 0.7) lymph nodes were retrieved; distal resection margins were disease free in both groups; circumferential margin was involved (<1.0 mm) in one (4%) of L-TME. There were 0 versus 1 (5%) conversions to laparotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

R-TME in rectal cancer is feasible, with short-term oncologic and other outcomes similar to those of L-TME. The greater maneuverability and visibility afforded by the robotic approach are attractive. Future studies should more systematically address advantages and costs of R-TME.