Open versus robot-assisted sphincter-saving operations in rectal cancer patients: techniques and comparison of outcomes between groups of 100 matched patients

Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant literature from PubMed, NCBI, Medline, and Springer databases, spanning the database inception until August 2023. The focus of this systematic review was on controlled studies that compared the treatment outcomes of robot-assisted (Rob) and conventional laparoscopy (Lap) in the context of mid and low rectal cancer. Data extraction and literature review were meticulously conducted by two independent researchers (HMW and RKG). The synthesized data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, adhering to established methodological standards in systematic reviews. The primary outcomes encompass perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes include long-term outcomes.

RESULT

A total of 11 studies involving 2239 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were included (3 RCTs and 8 NRCTs); the Rob group consisted of 1111 cases, while the Lap group included 1128 cases. The Rob group exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (MD =  -40.01, 95% CI: -57.61 to -22.42, P < 0.00001), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.82, P = 0.02), a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.18, P = 0.001), and a lower CRM positive rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95, P = 0.04). Additionally, the Rob group had lower postoperative morbidity rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) and a lower occurrence rate of complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.90, P = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis revealed a lower anastomotic leakage rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the analysis of operation time (P = 0.42), occurrence rates of protective stoma (P = 0.81), PRM (P = 0.92), and DRM (P = 0.23), time to flatus (P = 0.18), time to liquid diet (P = 0.65), total hospital stay (P = 0.35), 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.67), and 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment for mid and low rectal cancer yields favorable outcomes, demonstrating both efficacy and safety. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, patients experience reduced intraoperative bleeding and a lower incidence of complications. Notably, the method achieves comparable short-term and long-term treatment results to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery, thus justifying its consideration for widespread clinical application.

Neutropenic Diet Cannot Reduce the Risk of Infection and Mortality in Oncology Patients With Neutropenia

Background

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of a neutropenic diet and a control diet on infection and mortality rates in oncology patients with neutropenia.

Methods

We searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar Engine. Published studies involving neutropenic diets (study group) and control diets (control group) in oncology patients with neutropenia were searched. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of infection and mortality rates. A subgroup analysis was also performed.

Results

A total of 6 studies were included, with a total sample size of 1114 patients. The patients in the study group had a similar infection rate compared with the patients in the control group (P = 0.11). The patients in the study group had a similar mortality rate compared with the patients in the control group (P = 0.74). Another subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of infection was also similar for pediatric (P = 0.74) and adult (P = 0.11) oncology patients between the study and control groups.

Conclusions

Based on the current evidence, this meta-analysis showed that the application of a neutropenic diet cannot reduce the risk of infection and mortality in oncology patients with neutropenia. However, more rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this conclusion in the future.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Hype or Hope? (Indian Experience)

The primary goal to achieve cure in oncology is to reduce recurrence, maximize disease-free survival, maintain function, and optimize quality of life. Surgery remains the mainstay treatment modality in rectal cancer. The current trend is to perform least invasive method of doing complex surgeries while not compromising in the oncological of functional outcomes of patients. Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery entails removal of the rectum with its fascia as an intact unit while preserving surrounding vital structures. The procedure is technically challenging because of the narrow and deep pelvic cavity housing the rectum encased by fatty lymph vascular tissue within the perirectal fascia, distally the anal sphincter complex, and an intimate surrounded by vital structures like ureter, vessels, and nerves. Robotic technology enables overcoming these difficulties caused by complex pelvic anatomy. This system can facilitate better preservation of the pelvic autonomic nerve and thereby achieve favorable postoperative sexual and voiding functions after rectal cancer surgery. The nerve-preserving TME technique includes identification and preservation of the superior hypogastric plexus nerve, bilateral hypogastric nerves, pelvic plexus, and neurovascular bundles.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives

Despite the technical limitations of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has short-term advantages over open surgery, but the pathological outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials are still in controversy. Minimally invasive robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) has recently been gaining popularity as robotic surgical systems potentially provide greater benefits than LTME. Compared to LTME, RTME is associated with lower conversion rates and similar or better genitourinary functions, but its long-term oncological outcomes have not been established. Although the operating time of RTME is longer than that of LTME, RTME has a shorter learning curve, is more convenient for surgeons, and is better for sphincter-preserving operations than LTME. The robotic surgical system is a good technical tool for minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer, especially in male patients with narrow deep pelvises. Robotic systems and robotic surgical techniques are still improving, and the contribution of RTME to the treatment of rectal cancer will continue to increase in the future.

Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery in other gynecologic cancers has shown benefits with similar oncologic outcomes. However, the biology and complexity of surgery for ovarian cancer may preclude this approach for ovarian cancer patients. Our objective is to assess feasibility to achieve complete cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer patients via minimally invasive surgery. Our data sources include PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biosis, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model with DerSimonian and Laird estimator for the amount of heterogeneity to estimate the pooled outcomes. A funnel plot and Egger's regression test were used to test publication bias. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. There were 6 studies (3 prospective, 3 retrospective) that met the criteria for meta-analysis with a total of 3231 patients, 567 were in the minimally invasive group and 2664 in the laparotomy group. Both groups were similar in stage and serous histology. Complete cytoreductive surgery was achieved in 74.50% (95% CI 40.41-97.65%) and 53.10% (95% CI 4.88-97.75%) of patients in the minimally invasive and laparotomy groups, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between these 2 pooled proportions (p = 0.52). Three studies compared minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in obtaining complete cytoreductive surgery [OR = 0.90 (95% CI 0.70-1.16; p = 0.43)]. A symmetrical funnel plot indicated no publication bias. The pooled proportion for grade > 2 postoperative complications was not significant among the laparoscopy group [3.11% (95% CI 0.00-10.24%; p = 0.15)]. Complete cytoreductive surgery appears feasible and safe with minimally invasive surgery in selected advanced ovarian cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs. open abdominoperineal resection in terms of operative and initial oncological outcomes

Purpose

The present study aimed to objectively evaluate robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection (APR) in comparison with open APR, in terms of operative elements and initial oncological outcomes.

Methods

A total of 118 patients with lower rectal adenocarcinoma who had undergone curative APR were consecutively enrolled between June 2010 and June 2016, i.e., robot-assisted group (n = 40) and open group (n = 78).

Results

Transabdominal extralevator muscle excision was more frequently performed in the robot-assisted group than in the open group (68% vs. 42%, P = 0.012). In the robot-assisted group, the pain score at one day after surgery was less than in the open group, and the resumption of bowel function was earlier (P = 0.043 and P = 0.002, respectively). The occurrence of circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM+) was more than 5 times greater in the open group than in the robot-assisted group, presenting a marginal significance (P = 0.057). Although important postoperative morbidity did not generally differ between the 2 groups, voiding difficulty and male sexual dysfunction appeared to be encountered more frequently in the open group than in the robot-assisted group.

Conclusion

The robot-assisted APR facilitated transabdominal extralevator excision and bowel recovery and demonstrated a trend towards reduced CRM+.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide recommendations for clinical practice and prevention of postoperative complications, such as circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, and compare the amount of intraoperative bleeding, safety, operative time, recovery, outcomes, and clinical significance of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures in anus-preserving rectal cancer.

Methods

A literature search (PubMed) was performed to identify biomedical research papers and abstracts of studies comparing robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures. We attempted to obtain the full-text link for papers published between 2000 and 2016, and hand-searched references for relevant literature. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Nine papers (949 patients) were eligible for inclusion; there were 473 patients (49.8%) in the robotic group and 476 patients (50.2%) in the laparoscopic group. According to the data provided in the literature, seven indicators were used to complete the evaluation. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that robot-assisted procedure was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] −41.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] −77.51, −4.79; P=0.03), lower open conversion rate (risk difference [RD] −0.05; 95% CI −0.09, −0.01; P=0.02), lower hospital stay (MD −1.07; 95% CI −1.80, −0.33; P=0.005), lower overall complication rate (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.41, 0.83; P=0.003), and longer operative time (MD 33.73; 95% CI 8.48, 58.99; P=0.009) compared with conventional laparoscopy. There were no differences in the rate of CRM involvement (RD −0.02; 95% CI −0.05, 0.01; P=0.23) and days to return of bowel function (MD −0.03; 95% CI −0.40, 0.34; P=0.89).

Conclusion

The Da Vinci robot was superior to laparoscopy with respect to blood loss, open conversion, hospital stay, and postoperative complications during anus-preserving rectal cancer procedures; however, conventional laparoscopy had an advantage regarding operative time. The remaining indicators (CRMs and recovery from intestinal peristalsis) did not differ.

The da Vinci Xi: a review of its capabilities, versatility, and potential role in robotic colorectal surgery

The Xi is the latest da Vinci surgical system approved for use in colorectal surgery. With its novel overhead architecture, slimmer boom-mounted arms, extended instrument reach, guided targeting, and integrated auxiliary technology, the Xi manages to address several limitations of earlier models. The versatility of this new system allows it to be implemented in a wide range of colorectal procedures - from complex multiquadrant colectomies to challenging mesorectal dissections in the pelvis. While commonly criticized for its cost and prolonged operative time, robotic colorectal surgery holds the potential for enhanced ergonomics, superior precision, and a reduction in the learning curve involved in training an expert surgeon. This review appraises the existing literature on robotic colorectal surgery while elaborating how the improved capabilities of the Xi serve to usher in a new era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making

Background

The implementation of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) can be challenging, with reports of surgical robots being underused. This raises questions about differences compared with open and laparoscopic surgery and how best to integrate RAS into practice.

Objectives

To (1) contribute to reporting of the ROLARR (RObotic versus LAparoscopic Resection for Rectal cancer) trial, by investigating how variations in the implementation of RAS and the context impact outcomes; (2) produce guidance on factors likely to facilitate successful implementation; (3) produce guidance on how to ensure effective teamwork; and (4) provide data to inform the development of tools for RAS.

Design

Realist process evaluation alongside ROLARR. Phase 1 – a literature review identified theories concerning how RAS becomes embedded into practice and impacts on teamwork and decision-making. These were refined through interviews across nine NHS trusts with theatre teams. Phase 2 – a multisite case study was conducted across four trusts to test the theories. Data were collected using observation, video recording, interviews and questionnaires. Phase 3 – interviews were conducted in other surgical disciplines to assess the generalisability of the findings.

Findings

The introduction of RAS is surgeon led but dependent on support at multiple levels. There is significant variation in the training provided to theatre teams. Contextual factors supporting the integration of RAS include the provision of whole-team training, the presence of handpicked dedicated teams and the availability of suitably sized operating theatres. RAS introduces challenges for teamwork that can impact operation duration, but, over time, teams develop strategies to overcome these challenges. Working with an experienced assistant supports teamwork, but experience of the procedure is insufficient for competence in RAS and experienced scrub practitioners are important in supporting inexperienced assistants. RAS can result in reduced distraction and increased concentration for the surgeon when he or she is supported by an experienced assistant or scrub practitioner.

Conclusions

Our research suggests a need to pay greater attention to the training and skill mix of the team. To support effective teamwork, our research suggests that it is beneficial for surgeons to (1) encourage the team to communicate actions and concerns; (2) alert the attention of the assistant before issuing a request; and (3) acknowledge the scrub practitioner’s role in supporting inexperienced assistants. It is beneficial for the team to provide oral responses to the surgeon’s requests.

Limitations

This study started after the trial, limiting impact on analysis of the trial. The small number of operations observed may mean that less frequent impacts of RAS were missed.

Future work

Future research should include (1) exploring the transferability of guidance for effective teamwork to other surgical domains in which technology leads to the physical or perceptual separation of surgeon and team; (2) exploring the benefits and challenges of including realist methods in feasibility and pilot studies; (3) assessing the feasibility of using routine data to understand the impact of RAS on rare end points associated with patient safety; (4) developing and evaluating methods for whole-team training; and (5) evaluating the impact of different physical configurations of the robotic console and team members on teamwork.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery is slowly taking over as the preferred operative approach for colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain technically difficult. This article will give an overview of the state of minimally invasive surgery and the many advances that have been made over the last two decades. Specifically, we discuss the introduction of the robotic platform and some of its benefits and limitations. We also describe some newer techniques related to robotics.

Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery

INTRO

Although the use of laparoscopy has significantly increased in colorectal procedures, robotic surgery may enable additional cases to be performed using a minimally invasive approach. We separately evaluated the value of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures compared to the open approach.

METHODS

Patients undergoing nonemergent colorectal operations from 2010 to 2013 with National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data were identified. Robotic and laparoscopic procedures were separately matched (1:1) to open cases. Outcomes included 30-day composite morbidity, length of stay, operative time, and inpatient costs. Frequently used intraoperative disposable items were categorized, and significant cost contributors were identified by surgical approach. Statistical differences were determined with Chi-square and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

Both laparoscopic (n = 67) and robotic (n = 45) approaches were associated with decreased composite morbidity compared to matched open cases (lap vs. open: 22.4% vs. 49.2%, P < .01; robotic vs. open: 6.7% vs. 33.3%, P < .01). Median length of stay was significantly shorter for both laparoscopic and robotic compared to open surgery (lap vs. open: 5 vs. 7 days, P < .01; robotic vs. open: 5 vs. 7 days, P < .01). Median hospital costs were similar between laparoscopic and open surgery ($13,319 vs. $14,039; P = .80) and robotic and open surgery ($13,778 vs. $13,629; P = .48).

CONCLUSION

These findings illustrate the value for both laparoscopic and robotic approaches to colorectal surgery compared to the open approach in terms of short-term outcomes and inpatient costs. Advanced intraoperative disposable items such as cutting staplers and energy devices are important targets for additional cost containment.

Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

Because there are few comparative studies of open, laparoscopy-assisted (LA), and robot-assisted (RA) total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, we aimed to compare these three procedures in terms of sphincter-saving operation (SSO) achievement, surgical complications, and early oncological outcomes.

METHODS

The short-term outcomes of 2114 patients with rectal cancer consecutively enrolled between July 2010 and February 2015 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) were retrospectively evaluated. Patients underwent either open, LA, or RA TME (n = 1095, 486, and 533, respectively) performed by experienced surgeons.

RESULTS

RA TME was a significant determinant of SSO in multivariate analysis that included potential variables such as tumor location and T4 category (odds ratio, 2.458; 95 % confidence interval, 1.497-4.036; p < 0.001). The cumulative rates of 3-year local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival did not differ among the three groups: 2.5-3.4, 91.9-94.6, and 82.2-83.1 % (p = 0.85, 0.352, and 0.944, respectively). Early general surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open group than in the LA and RA groups (19.3 versus 13.0 versus 12.2 %, p < 0.001), specifically ileus and wound infection.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in 3-year survival outcomes and local recurrence among open, LA, and RA TME. RA TME is useful for SSO achievement, regardless of advanced stage and location of rectal cancer. The open procedure had a slightly but significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications than LA and RA.

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.

Short-term Outcome of Robot-assisted and Open IPAA: An Observational Single-center Study

BACKGROUND

The potential advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopy are being increasingly investigated, although data on its efficacy in benign colorectal surgery are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the early postoperative outcome in robot-assisted IPAA with open surgery procedures.

DESIGN

This was an observational study based on prospectively collected data obtained from chart reviews.

SETTING

The single-center data set covers patients operated on from January 13, 2004, to September 16, 2014, at a specialist center.

PATIENTS

Patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing IPAA surgery were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Study end points included the duration of operation, admission length, complications (Clavien-Dindo), reoperations, and readmissions.

RESULTS

Eighty-one robot-assisted and 170 open IPAA procedures were performed. The duration of operation was significantly longer for robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures (mean difference, 154 minutes; CI, 140-170). During a mean follow-up of 102 days, no significant differences in the distribution of complications were found (Spearman p = 0.12; p = 0.07), and no postoperative deaths occurred in either group. Postoperative admission length was shorter following robot-assisted procedures (mean difference, -1.9; CI, -3.5 to -0.3), whereas 40% of patients were readmitted, compared with 26% of patients who had open surgery (OR, 1.9; CI, 1.1-3.4). Pouch failure occurred in 3 patients (1 following robot-assisted laparoscopy; 2 following open surgery). On multivariate regression analyses, robot-assisted laparoscopy was associated with a significantly longer duration of operation (mean difference, 159 minutes; CI, 144-174), and more readmissions for any cause (OR, 2; CI, 1.1-3.7).

LIMITATIONS

This was a nonrandomized, single-center observational study.

CONCLUSION

In this implementation phase, robot-assisted IPAA surgery offers acceptable short-term outcomes. The limitations of this observational study call for randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up and exploration of functional results.

Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years

Background

Robotic surgery has been in existence for 30 years. This study aimed to evaluate the overall perioperative outcomes of robotic surgery compared with open surgery (OS) and conventional minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across various surgical procedures.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1990 up to October 2013 with no language restriction. Relevant review articles were hand-searched for remaining studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies (PROs) on perioperative outcomes, regardless of patient age and sex, were included. Primary outcomes were blood loss, blood transfusion rate, operative time, length of hospital stay, and 30-day overall complication rate.

Results

We identified 99 relevant articles (108 studies, 14,448 patients). For robotic versus OS, 50 studies (11 RCTs, 39 PROs) demonstrated reduction in blood loss [ratio of means (RoM) 0.505, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.408–0.602], transfusion rate [risk ratio (RR) 0.272, 95 % CI 0.165–0.449], length of hospital stay (RoM 0.695, 0.615–0.774), and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.637, 0.483–0.838) in favour of robotic surgery. For robotic versus MIS, 58 studies (21 RCTs, 37 PROs) demonstrated reduced blood loss (RoM 0.853, 0.736–0.969) and transfusion rate (RR 0.621, 0.390–0.988) in favour of robotic surgery but similar length of hospital stay (RoM 0.982, 0.936–1.027) and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.988, 0.822–1.188). In both comparisons, robotic surgery prolonged operative time (OS: RoM 1.073, 1.022–1.124; MIS: RoM 1.135, 1.096–1.173). The benefits of robotic surgery lacked robustness on RCT-sensitivity analyses. However, many studies, including the relatively few available RCTs, suffered from high risk of bias and inadequate statistical power.

Conclusions

Our results showed that robotic surgery contributed positively to some perioperative outcomes but longer operative times remained a shortcoming. Better quality evidence is needed to guide surgical decision making regarding the precise clinical targets of this innovation in the next generation of its use.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Update in 2015

During the last decade, robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly gained acceptance among colorectal surgeons worldwide, with well-established safety and feasibility. The lower conversion rate and better surgical specimen quality of robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery potentially improves survival. Earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision is another favorable outcome. Long-term survival data are sparse with no evidence that robotic surgery offers major benefits in oncological outcomes. Although initial reports are promising, more rigorous scientific evaluation in multicenter, randomized clinical trials should be performed to definitely determine the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery.

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.

Genetics, diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (Review)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer worldwide and a leading cause of cancer death. Surgery represents the mainstay of treatment in early cases but often patients are primarily diagnosed in an advanced stage of disease and sometimes also distant metastases are present. Neoadjuvant therapy is therefore needed but drug resistance may influence response and concur to recurrent disease. At molecular level, it is a very heterogeneous group of diseases with about 30% of hereditary or familial cases. During colorectal adenocarcinomas development, epithelial cells from gastrointestinal trait acquire sequential genetic and epigenetic mutations in specific oncogenes and/or tumour suppressor genes, causing CRC onset, progression and metastasis. Molecular characterization of cancer associated mutations gives valuable information about disease prognosis and response to the therapy. Very early diagnosis and personalized care, as well as a better knowledge of molecular basis of its onset and progression, are therefore crucial to obtain a cure of CRC. In this review, we describe updated genetics, current diagnosis and management of CRC pointing out the extreme need for a multidisciplinary approach to achieve the best results in patient outcomes.

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.

Completely abdominal intersphincteric resection for lower rectal cancer: feasibility and comparison of robot-assisted and open surgery

BACKGROUND

Most previous studies of intersphincteric resection (ISR) adopted a two-stage procedure involving abdominal and transanal approaches. We performed completely abdominal ISR via open and a robot-assisted (RA) approaches as treatments for lower rectal cancer (LRC). The RA approach might enable deep dissection and facilitate ISR in patients with restrictive pelvic anatomy.

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of 222 LRC patients who underwent completely abdominal ISR (RA ISR, n = 108; open ISR, n = 114) was enrolled prospectively, and their short-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

In a multivariate analysis, ISR was performed more frequently in the RA than in the open group (82.6 vs. 67.9 %, p = 0.008). The number of harvested lymph nodes was >12 in both groups. A positive distal resection margin was not observed in either group, and a positive circumferential resection margin was found in one patient in the RA group. Overall morbidity did not differ between the groups. Moderate to severe sexual dysfunction occurred 2.7-fold more frequently in the open group (p = 0.023) among male patients ≤65 years. Mean Wexner's fecal incontinence scores at postoperative months 6 and 12 were greater in the open group than in the RA group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Completely abdominal ISR may be feasible in the treatment of LRC, based on a short-term study. Furthermore, RA ISR had equivalent oncological outcomes and slightly improved functional recovery relative to open ISR.

A comparison of the technical and oncologic validity between robot-assisted and conventional open abdominoperineal resection

PURPOSE

This study was to ascertain whether a robot-assisted (RA) approach to APR might facilitate a cylindrical APR by enabling a deeper pelvic dissection during an abdominal approach, concurrently comparing the feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Forty-eight consecutive patients with lower rectal cancer who had undergone curative APR (21 RA vs. 27 open) were prospectively enrolled. The short-term operative outcomes and oncologic feasibility were evaluated and compared. A levator muscle excision was performed concomitantly with the abdominal procedure in the RA group and with the perineal procedure in the open group.

RESULTS

No patients in the RA group experienced intraoperative perforation or required conversion to open APR. Overall, a cylindrical APR was performed in 72 % of patients, and subtotal excision of the levator muscle, i.e., either one or both sides of the puborectalis and pubococcygeus muscles, was more likely in the RA group (P = 0.019). A positive CRM was exclusively identified in four open APR patients. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was greater in the RA group (20 vs. 16, P = 0.035). There was no difference in perineal morbidity between the two groups (P = 0.445).

CONCLUSIONS

The RA approach facilitates an efficient excision in the pelvic region than open APR during the abdominal procedure. The RA approach also demonstrated a trend toward improved oncologic outcomes with equivalent postoperative morbidities than with the open approach.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review of current practice

AIM: To give a comprehensive review of current literature on robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS: A systematic review of current literature via PubMed and Embase search engines was performed to identify relevant articles from january 2007 to november 2013. The keywords used were: “robotic surgery”, “surgical robotics”, “laparoscopic computer-assisted surgery”, “colectomy” and “rectal resection”.

RESULTS: After the initial screen of 380 articles, 20 papers were selected for review. A total of 1062 patients (male 64.0%) with a mean age of 61.1 years and body mass index of 24.9 kg/m² were included in the review. Out of 1062 robotic-assisted operations, 831 (78.2%) anterior and low anterior resections, 132 (12.4%) intersphincteric resection with coloanal anastomosis, 98 (9.3%) abdominoperineal resections and 1 (0.1%) Hartmann’s operation were included in the review. Robotic rectal surgery was associated with longer operative time but with comparable oncological results and anastomotic leak rate when compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery.

CONCLUSION: Robotic colorectal surgery has continued to evolve to its current state with promising results; feasible surgical option with low conversion rate and comparable short-term oncological results. The challenges faced with robotic surgery are for more high quality studies to justify its cost.

Laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Brief review and personal remarks

The current standard treatment for rectal cancer is based on a multimodality approach with preoperative radiochemotherapy in advanced cases and complete surgical removal through total mesorectal excision (TME). The most frequent surgical approach is traditional open surgery, as laparoscopic TME requires high technical skill, a long learning curve, and is not widespread, still being confined to centers with great experience in minimally invasive techniques. Nevertheless, in several studies, the laparoscopic approach, when compared to open surgery, has shown some better short-term clinical outcomes and at least comparable oncologic results. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is an emerging technique, which could overcome some of the technical difficulties posed by standard laparoscopy, but evidence from the literature regarding its oncologic safety and clinical outcomes is still lacking. This brief review analyses the current status of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer therapy, focusing on oncologic safety and the new robotic approach.

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.

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.

The role of the robotic technique in minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer

Laparoscopic rectal surgery is feasible, oncologically safe, and offers better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures in terms of pain control, recovery of bowel function, length of hospital stay, and time until return to working activity. Nevertheless, laparoscopic techniques are not widely used in rectal surgery, mainly because they require a prolonged and demanding learning curve that is available only in high-volume and rectal cancer surgery centres experienced in minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery is a new technology that enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncological outcomes of minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on robotic surgery, and providing original data from the authors’ centre.

Surgical issues in locally advanced rectal cancer treated by preoperative chemoradiotherapy

The standard treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer is preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision. This approach is supported by randomized trials, but there are still many unanswered questions about the multimodal management of rectal cancer. In surgical terms, these include the optimal time interval between completion of chemoradiotherapy and surgery; adequate distal resection margin and circumferential radial margin; sphincter preservation; laparoscopic surgery; and conservative management, including a 'wait and see' policy and local excision. This review considers these controversial issues in preoperative chemoradiotherapy.