A comparison of open and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma

Minimally Invasive Rectal Surgery: Current Status and Future Perspectives in the Era of Digital Surgery

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive approaches in rectal surgery have changed the landscape of surgical interventions, impacting both malignant and benign pathologies. The dynamic nature of rectal cancer treatment owes much to innovations in surgical techniques, reflected in the expanding literature on available treatment modalities. Local excision, facilitated by minimally invasive surgery, offers curative potential for patients with early T1 rectal cancers and favorable pathologic features. For more complex cases, laparoscopic and robotic surgery have demonstrated significant efficacy and provided precise, durable outcomes while reducing perioperative morbidity and enhancing postoperative recovery. Additionally, advancements in imaging, surgical instrumentation, and enhanced recovery protocols have further optimized patient care. The integration of multidisciplinary care has also emerged as a cornerstone of treatment, emphasizing collaboration among surgeons, oncologists, and radiologists to deliver personalized, evidence-based care. This narrative review aims to elucidate current minimally invasive surgical techniques and approaches for rectal pathologies, spanning benign and malignant conditions, while also exploring future directions in the field, including the potential role of artificial intelligence and next-generation robotic platforms.

Does robotic TME bring difference in lymph node yield and quality of TME?

BACKGROUNDS

Oncological outcomes of the robotic low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) are still under discussion. Few studies have proven that robotic TME (rTME) is a safe and equivalent method for treatment of rectal carcinoma. But there is almost no comparison between the rTME and conventional TME in terms of the number of lymph nodes obtained and the quality of the TME.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective study was designed in a cohort of 261 patients. Cohort was divided into two groups depending on the type of surgery (rTME versus TME) and within these two groups, patients were divided according to whether they underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCHRT) or did not. The primary objective of the study was to compare obtained number of the lymph nodes in specimen. Secondary objectives were comparison of the quality of the TME and the number of positive circumferential resection margins.

RESULTS

Results of the study have shown no significant difference in number of the lymph nodes obtained by the rTME and TME. There was no difference in the quality of the TME, neither in the group with the previous nCHRT nor in the group without a nCHRT.

CONCLUSION

With results from the study we consider the rTME to be non-inferior to the conventional TME. Therefore, at least identical oncological results can be expected in patients treated by the rTME.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Resection of low rectal adenocarcinoma can be challenging in the narrow pelvis of male patients. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to offer technical advantages for distal rectal tumours, and robotic-assisted transabdominal TME (rTME) was introduced in effort to improve operative precision and ergonomics. However, no study has comprehensively compared these approaches. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare postoperative short-term outcomes in rTME and TaTME.

METHODS

A systematic online search (1974-July 2020) of MEDLINE, Embase, web of science and google scholar was conducted for trials, prospective or retrospective studies involving rTME, or TaTME for rectal cancer. Outcome variables included: hospital stay; operation duration, blood loss; resection margins; proportion of histologically complete resected specimens; lymph nodes; overall complications; anastomotic leak, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles met the inclusion criteria, including 37 studies (3835 patients) assessing rTME resection, 23 studies (1326 patients) involving TaTME and 2 comparing both (165 patients). Operating time was longer in rTME (309.2 min, 95% CI 285.5-332.8) than in TaTME studies (256.2 min, 95% CI 231.5-280.9) (p = 0.002). rTME resected specimens had a larger distal resection margin (2.62 cm, 95% CI 2.35-2.88) than in TaTME studies (2.10 cm, 95% CI 1.83-2.36) (p = 0.007). Other outcome variables did not significantly differ between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

rTME provides similar pathological and short-term outcomes to TaTME and both are reasonable surgical approaches for patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. To definitively answer the question of the optimal TME technique, we suggest a prospective trial comparing both techniques assessing long-term survival as a primary outcome.

Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The application of robotic surgery for rectal cancer is increasing steadily. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare pathologic outcomes among patients with rectal cancer who underwent open rectal surgery (ORS) versus robotic rectal surgery (RRS).

Methods

We systematically searched the literature of EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) comparing ORS with RRS.

Results

Fourteen nRCTs, including 2711 patients met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.16, P = 0.13), number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD: −0.31, 95% CI, −2.16 to 1.53, P = 0.74), complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rates (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.78, P = 0.83) and the length of distal resection margins (DRM) (WMD: −0.01, 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.25, P = 0.96) did not differ significantly between the RRS and ORS groups.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence, robotic resection for rectal cancer provided equivalent pathological outcomes to ORS in terms of CRM positivity, number of harvested lymph nodes and complete TME rates and DRM.

Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute

Surgical techniques have evolved over the past few decades, and minimally invasive surgery has been rapidly adapted to become a preferred operative approach for treating colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain a technical challenge for surgeons to perform laparoscopically, which has prompted the development of robotic platforms. Robotic surgery has been introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. The present article provides an overview of robotic rectal surgery and describes many advances that have been made in the field over the past two decades. More specifically, the introduction of the robotic platform and its benefits, and the limitations of current robotic technology, are discussed. Although the main advantages of robotic surgery over conventional laparoscopy appear to be lower conversion rates and better surgical specimen quality, oncological and functional outcomes appear to be similar to those of other alternatives. Other potential benefits include earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision. Nevertheless, the costs and lack of haptic feedback remain the primary limitations to the widespread use of robotic technology in the field.

Robotic Colorectal Surgery

The role of robotics in colon and rectal surgery has been established as an important and effective tool for the surgeon. Its inherent technologies have provided for increased visualization and ease of dissection in the minimally invasive approach to surgery. The value of the robot is apparent in the more challenging aspects of colon and rectal procedures, including the intracorporeal anastomosis for right colectomies and the low pelvic dissection for benign and malignant diseases.

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

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

Open versus minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center cohort study on 237 consecutive patients

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is gaining popularity in rectal tumor treatment. However, contrasting data are available regarding its safety and efficacy. Our aim is to compare the open and MIS approaches for rectal cancer treatment. Two-hundred-thirty-seven patients were included: 113 open and 124 MIS rectal resections. After the propensity score matching analysis (PS), the cases were matched into 42 open and 42 MIS. Short- and long-term outcomes, and pathological findings were analyzed before and after PS. A further comparison of the same outcomes and costs was conducted between the laparoscopic and the robotic approaches. As a whole, a sphincter-preserving procedure was more frequently performed in the MIS group (110 vs 75 cases; p < 0.0001). The estimated blood loss during MIS was significantly lower than during open surgery [127 (± 92) vs 242 (± 122) mL; p < 0.0001], with clear advantages for the robotic approach over laparoscopy [113 (± 87) vs 147 (± 93) mL; p 0.01]. Complication rate was comparable between the two groups. A higher rate of CRM positivity was evidenced after open surgery (12.4% vs 1.7%; p 0.004). A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested in the MIS group [12.5 (± 6.4) vs 11 (± 5.6); p 0.04]. After PS, no difference in terms of perioperative outcomes was noted, with the only exception of a higher blood loss in the open approach [242 (± 122) vs 127 (± 92) mL; p < 0.0001]. For the matched cases, no difference in 5-year overall and disease-free survival was evidenced (p 0.50 and 0.88, respectively). Mean costs were higher for robotics as compared to laparoscopy [9812 (±1974)€ vs 9045 (± 1893)€; p 0.02]. MIS could be considered as a treatment option for rectal cancer. The PS study evidenced clear advantages in terms of estimated blood loss over the open surgery. Costs still remain the main limit for robotics.

Systematic review analysis of robotic and transanal approaches in TME surgery- A systematic review of the current literature in regard to challenges in rectal cancer surgery

Several patients' and pathological characteristics in rectal surgery can significantly complicate surgical loco regional tumor clearance. The main factors are obesity, short tumor distance from anal verge, bulky tumors, and narrow pelvis, which have been shown to be associated to poor surgical results in open and laparoscopic approaches. Minimally invasive surgery has the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity with equivalent short- and long-term oncological outcomes compared to conventional open approach. Achilles' heel of laparoscopic approaches is conversion to open surgery. High risk for conversion is evident for patients with bulky and low tumors as well as male gender and narrow pelvis. Hence, patient's characteristics represent challenges in rectal cancer surgery especially in minimally invasive approaches. The available surgical techniques increased remarkably with recently developed and implemented improvements of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. The controversial discussions about sense and purpose of these novel approaches are still ongoing in the literature. Herein, we evaluate, if latest technical advances like transanal approach or robotic assisted surgery have the potential to overcome known challenges and pitfalls in rectal cancer surgery in demanding surgical cases and highlight the role of current minimally invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery.

Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures

Introduction

For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately.

Results

69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified.

Conclusion

Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.

Outcome one year after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a consecutive cohort study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate outcome after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RARCS). We focused on conversion rate, postoperative complications, pathological evaluation (adequacy of resection margins), and bowel function (low anterior resection syndrome (LARS)) 1 year after surgery.

METHODS

An observational study of prospectively registered patients with data obtained from medical records. Data comprise the initial 208 rectal cancer patients operated with robot-assisted surgery at a single Danish university hospital from October 2011 to October 2014.

RESULTS

In total, 27 procedures (13%) were converted to open surgery, and 23 of the 27(85%) conversions were in the obese and overweight patients. The anastomotic leak rate was 12 (9%), and further 5 (2%) developed a complication requiring re-operation (ileus, bleeding, wound abscess). In total, 14 (7%) patients had a circumferential resection margin (CRM) ≤ 1 mm (R1-resection). In regard to bowel function, 15/22 (68%) of TME patients had major LARS at 6 months follow-up but at 12 months follow-up this proportion was reduced to 18/34 (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes after RARCS at a single high-volume university center are overall comparable to outcomes reported from laparoscopic surgery. The results are satisfying because they are achieved during implementation of RARCS. Randomized trials are, however, needed and focus should especially be on long-term follow-up in regard to functional outcome.

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.

Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer

Throughout history, surgeons have been on a quest to refine the surgical treatment options for their patients and to minimize operative trauma. During the last three decades, there have been tremendous advances in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with an explosion of different technologies and approaches offered to treat well-known diseases. Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be equal or superior to open surgery. The boundaries of laparoscopy have been pushed further, in the form of single-incision laparoscopy, natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotics. This paper critically reviews the pathway of development of minimally invasive surgery, and appraises the different minimally invasive colorectal surgical approaches available to date.

Evaluation of the robotic approach concerning pitfalls in rectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility and advantages of robotic rectal surgery (RRS) in comparison to conventional open or laparoscopic rectal resections have been postulated in several reports. But well-known challenges and pitfalls of minimal invasive rectal surgery have not been evaluated by a prospective, multicenter setting so far. Aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative outcome of patients following RRS especially in regard to the pitfalls such as obesity, male patients and low tumors by a European multicenter setting.

METHODS

This prospective study included 348 patients undergoing robotic surgery due to rectal cancer in six major European centers. Clinicopathological parameters, morbidity, perioperative recovery and short-term outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 283 restorative surgeries and 65 abdominoperineal resections were carried out. The conversion rate was 4.3%, mean blood loss was 191 ml, and mean operative time was 315 min. Postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score >2 were observed in 13.5%. Obesity and low rectal tumors showed no significant higher rates of major complications or impaired oncological parameters. Male patients had significant higher rates of major complications and anastomotic leakage (p = 0.048 and p = 0.007, respectively).

DISCUSSION

RRS is a promising tool for improvement of rectal resections. The well-known pitfalls of minimal-invasive rectal surgery like obesity and low tumors were sufficiently managed by RRS. However, RRS showed significantly higher rates of major complications and anastomotic leakage in male patients, which has to be evaluated by future randomized trials.

Robotic-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.

The circumferential resection margins status: A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer (RC) is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach, but robotic-assisted surgery may overcome some limitations of laparoscopy in RC treatment. We compared the rate of positive circumferential margins between robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision (TME) for RC in our institution.

METHODS

Mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma patients consecutively submitted to robotic surgery were compared to laparoscopic and open approach. From our prospective database, 59 patients underwent robotic-assisted rectal surgery from 2012 to 2015 (RTME group) were compared to our historical control group comprising 200 open TME (OTME group) and 41 laparoscopic TME (LTME group) approaches from July 2008 to February 2012. Primary endpoint was to compare the rate of involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) and the mean CRM between the three groups. Secondary endpoint was to compare the mean number of resected lymph nodes between the three groups.

RESULTS

CRM involvement was demonstrated in 20 patients (15.5%) in OTME, 4 (16%) in LTME and 9 (16.4%) in the RTME (p = 0.988). The mean CRM in OTME, LTME and RTME were respectively 0.6 cm (0-2.7), 0.7 cm (0-2.0) and 0.6 cm (0-2.0) (p = 0.960). Overall mean LN harvest was 14 (0-56); 16 (0-52) in OTME, 13 (1-56) in LTME and 10 (0-45) in RTME (p = 0.156).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that robotic TME has the same oncological short-term results when compared to the open and laparoscopic technique, and it could be safely offered for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer.

Robotic-laparoscopic rectal cancer excision versus traditional laparoscopy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery has been advocated for the radical excision of rectal cancer. Most data supporting its use have been reported from European and Asian centers, with a paucity of data from the United States documenting clear advantages of the robotic technique. This study compares the short-term outcome of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (group 1) or robotic (group 2) rectal cancer excision at a single institution over a 2-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The main outcome measures were operative time, blood loss, conversion rates, number of lymph nodes, margin positivity, length of hospital stay, complications, and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were analyzed. The median operative time was shorter in group 1 than that in group 2 (240 minutes vs 260 minutes, P=.04). No difference was noted in blood loss, transfusion rates, intraoperative complications, or conversion rates. There was no difference in circumferential or distal margin positivity. The median length of stay was shorter in group 1 (5 days vs 6 days, P=.05). The 90-day complication rate was similar in both groups (33% vs 43%, P=.75), but there was a trend toward more anastomotic leaks in group 1 (14% vs 0%, P=.23). Similarly, a non-statistically significant trend toward a higher readmission rate was noted in group 1 (24% vs 5%, P=.18).

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal cancer excision yielded a longer operative time and hospital length of stay, although immediate oncologic results were comparable. The need for randomized data is critical to determine whether the added resource utilization in robotic surgery is justifiable.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Medium-Term Comparative Outcomes from a Multicenter Study

Purpose

Several studies have demonstrated the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic (LS) and open (OS) rectal cancer surgeries and have shown how challenging LS may become. Robotic surgery (RS) has emerged as a practical alternative, offering interesting advantages in comparison to both LS and OS. The aim of this study is to resolve the clinicopathologic outcome advantages of RS with respect to OS and LS techniques.

Methods

Patients with rectal cancer undergoing OS, RS, or LS were evaluated within the period from April 2009 to August 2011. The evaluations were carried out in 4 Italian hospitals. Perioperative clinicopathologic data, postoperative complications, and 3-year overall and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were analyzed.

Results

A total of 160 patients (94 male, 66 female) were included. A total of 105 patients underwent mini-invasive procedure (40 LS; 65 RS), whereas OS was performed in 55 patients. Anterior resection of rectal cancer was the most performed surgical procedure (139; 87%). Median operation time was significantly longer in the RS group (p<0.01). Regarding complication rates and quality of the surgical specimen evaluation, no statistical difference was found among the 3 groups. The shortest hospital stay (p<0.01) was obtained from the LS and RS groups. The median follow-up was 33 months without any significant difference in overall and DFS rates.

Conclusions

Although RS for rectal cancer requires more time to be performed than LS and OS techniques, the analysis shows comparatively the feasibility and safety of RS in terms of perioperative clinicopathologic and medium-term outcomes.

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.

Dynamic Article: Tandem Robotic Technique of Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision and Rectus Abdominis Muscle Harvest for Immediate Closure of the Pelvic Floor Defect

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for distal rectal cancers involves cylindrical excision of the mesorectum with wide division of the levator ani muscles. Although this technique has been shown to decrease local cancer recurrence and improve survival, it leaves the patient with a considerable pelvic floor defect that may require reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE

We developed an innovative technique of robotic extralevator abdominoperineal excision combined with robotic harvest of the rectus abdominis muscle flap for immediate reconstruction of the pelvic floor defect.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review pilot study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a tertiary care cancer center.

PATIENTS

Three patients who underwent robotic extralevator abdominoperineal excision with robotic rectus abdominis flap harvest for distal rectal adenocarcinoma were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes included operative time, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, wound complications, incidence of perineal hernia, persistent pain, and functional limitations.

RESULTS

Three patients underwent this procedure. The median operative time was 522 minutes with median hospital stay of 6 days. One patient experienced perineal wound complication requiring limited incision and drainage followed by complete healing of the wound by secondary intention. The other 2 patients did not experience any wound complications. Longest follow-up was 16 months. None of the patients developed perineal hernias during this time period.

LIMITATIONS

The small sample size and retrospective nature were limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

This technique confers multiple advantages including improved visualization and dexterity within the pelvis and accurate wide margins at the pelvic floor. An incisionless robotic flap harvest with preservation of the anterior rectus sheath obviates the risk of ventral hernia while providing robust tissue closure of the radiated abdominoperineal excision wound. This technique may result in faster postoperative recovery, decreased morbidity, improved functional outcomes and cosmesis. Further studies are needed to prospectively analyze this approach (Supplemental Digital Content 1, video abstract, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A188).

Evaluation of pilot experience with robotic-assisted proctectomy and coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted proctectomy with coloanal anastomosis (RPCA) is an innovative technique of pelvic dissection for low rectal cancer. Our objective was to evaluate our pilot experience with this procedure compared with open proctectomy with coloanal anastomosis (OPCA).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective 5-year review of all consecutive cases of RPCA and OPCA performed at our institute. We focused on tumour characteristics, quality of surgery, analgesic requirements, average length of hospital stay (LOS), complications and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Three patients underwent RPCA and 25 had OPCA. The average duration of surgery was similar (288 min for RPCA v. 285 min for OPCA). Four patients in the OPCA group had positive or very close margins, and 2 had a mesorectal defect less than 5 mm. The average LOS was 6.66 and 9.29 days in the RPCA and OPCA groups, respectively, and the average duration of epidural or patient-controlled anesthesia was 2.67 and 5.16 days, respectively. We did not perform a statistical comparison because of the discordant size and sex distribution between the groups. There were no perioperative complications in the RPCA group, and all patients had negative margins and adequate lymph node retrievals with no long-term complications or recurrence recorded so far.

CONCLUSION

Our very early experience with RPCA is quite encouraging, suggesting that it is a safe alternative to OPCA with a similar duration and the added benefits of a minimally invasive procedure, including decreased LOS and reduced postoperative analgesic requirements.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes

BACKGROUND

While robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Moreover, there are no large studies evaluating the trends of RACS at the national level.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009-2010 was retrospectively reviewed for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed for cancer, benign polyps, and diverticular disease. Trends in different settings, indications, and demographics were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare selected outcomes between RACS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

RESULTS

An estimated 128,288 colorectal procedures were performed through minimally invasive techniques over the study period, and RACS was used in 2.78 % of cases. From 2009 to 2010, the use of robotics increased in all hospital settings but was still more common in large, urban, and teaching hospitals. Rectal cancer was the most common indication for RACS, with a tendency toward its selective use in male patients. On multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was associated with higher hospital charges in colonic ($11,601.39; 95 % CI 6,921.82-16,280.97) and rectal cases ($12,964.90; 95 % CI 6,534.79-19,395.01), and higher rates of postoperative bleeding in colonic cases (OR = 2.15; 95 % CI 1.27- 3.65). RACS was similar to CLS with respect to length of hospital stay, morbidity, anastomotic leak, and ileus. Conversion to open surgery was significantly lower in robotic colonic and rectal procedures (0.41; 95 % CI 0.25-0.67) and (0.10; 95 % CI 0.06-0.16), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of RACS is still limited in the United States. However, its use increased over the study period despite higher associated charges and no real advantages over laparoscopy in terms of outcome. The one advantage is lower conversion rates.

Techniques in total mesorectal excision surgery

Advances in the surgical management of rectal cancer have placed the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the major predictor in overall survival. A standardized TME technique along with quality increases the percentage of patients undergoing a complete TME. Quality measurements of TME will place increasing demands on surgeons maintaining competence with present and future techniques. These efforts will improve the outcome of the rectal cancer patients.

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

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

Comparative effectiveness in colon and rectal cancer

Treatment of colorectal cancer is becoming more uniform, with wider acceptance of standardized guidelines. However, areas of controversy exist where the appropriate treatment is not clear, including: should a segmental colectomy or a more extensive resection be performed in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer? should an asymptomatic primary cancer be resected in the presence of unresectable metastatic disease? what is the role of extended lymph node resection in colon and rectal cancer? are there clinically significant benefits for a robotic approach to colorectal resection versus a laparoscopic approach? This chapter will examine these issues and discuss how they may be resolved.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Resection: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Use of robotics in colon and rectal surgery

The pace of innovation in the field of surgery continues to accelerate. As new technologies are developed in combination with industry and clinicians, specialized patient care improves. In the field of colon and rectal surgery, robotic systems offer clinicians many alternative ways to care for patients. From having the ability to round remotely to improved visualization and dissection in the operating room, robotic assistance can greatly benefit clinical outcomes. Although the field of robotics in surgery is still in its infancy, many groups are actively investigating technologies that will assist clinicians in caring for their patients. As these technologies evolve, surgeons will continue to find new and innovative ways to utilize the systems for improved patient care and comfort.

An initial experience with 85 consecutive robotic-assisted rectal dissections: improved operating times and lower costs with experience

BACKGROUND

Data are limited about the robotic platform in rectal dissections, and its use may be perceived as prohibitively expensive or difficult to learn. We report our experience with the initial robotic-assisted rectal dissections performed by a single surgeon, assessing learning curve and cost.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, a retrospective chart review was conducted of the first 85 robotic-assisted rectal dissections performed by a single surgeon between 9/1/2010 and 12/31/2012. Patient demographic, clinicopathologic, procedure, and outcome data were gathered. Cost data were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database. The first 43 cases (Time 1) were compared to the next 42 cases (Time 2) using multivariate linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Indications for surgery were cancer for 51 patients (60 %), inflammatory bowel disease for 18 (21 %), and rectal prolapse for 16 (19 %). The most common procedures were low anterior resection (n = 25, 29 %) and abdominoperineal resection (n = 21, 25 %). The patient body mass index (BMI) was statistically different between the two patient groups (Time 1, 26.1 kg/m(2) vs. Time 2, 29.4 kg/m(2), p = 0.02). Complication and conversion rates did not differ between the groups. Mean operating time was significantly shorter for Time 2 (267 min vs. 224 min, p = 0.049) and remained significant in multivariate analysis. Though not reaching statistical significance, the mean observed direct hospital cost decreased ($17,349 for Time 1 vs. $13,680 for Time 2, p = 0.2). The observed/expected cost ratio significantly decreased (1.47 for Time 1 vs. 1.05 for Time 2, p = 0.007) but did not remain statistically significant in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the series, we demonstrated a significant improvement in operating times. Though not statistically significant, direct hospital costs trended down over time. Studies of larger patient groups are needed to confirm these findings and to correlate them with procedure volume to better define the learning curve process.

[Lymph node dissection: what for? From esophagus to rectum: surgical and lymph node related prognostic factors]

Surgery has still a key role in curative treatment of digestive carcinomas, and for almost all localisations, lymph node status is a major prognostic factor. As far as oesophageal and gastric cancer are concerned, there is not yet any internationally standardized approach. Occidental guidelines recommend more limited lymph node dissections than Asiatic ones. Lymph node numbers requested during surgery of such cancers remain high, at least 23 lymph nodes for oesophageal cancer, and 25 for a D2 or D1.5 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Generalisation of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatments has not yet modified these standards. On the other hand, rectal cancer surgery is well standardized since the global adoption of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) for the late eighties. Development of mini-invasive techniques (laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery) enabled an important decrease of surgery related morbidity as well as an enhanced post-operative recovery. However, rectal cancer surgery still has an important morbidity. Development of neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy as well as in-depth knowledge of risk factor of lymph node invasion opened up the path for transanal full thickness resection without lymphadenectomy. The goal of such an approach is to avoid TME's morbidity without risking local recurrence rate increase. As a consequence, this technique might need to be completed with a TME case histological factors are not favorable.

Novel application of simultaneous multi-image display during complex robotic abdominal procedures

Background

The surgical robot offers the potential to integrate multiple views into the surgical console screen, and for the assistant’s monitors to provide real-time views of both fields of operation. This function has the potential to increase patient safety and surgical efficiency during an operation. Herein, we present a novel application of the multi-image display system for simultaneous visualization of endoscopic views during various complex robotic gastrointestinal operations.

All operations were performed using the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) with the assistance of Tilepro, multi-input display software, during employment of the intraoperative scopes. Three robotic operations, left hepatectomy with intraoperative common bile duct exploration, low anterior resection, and radical distal subtotal gastrectomy with intracorporeal gastrojejunostomy, were performed by three different surgeons at a tertiary academic medical center.

Results

The three complex robotic abdominal operations were successfully completed without difficulty or intraoperative complications. The use of the Tilepro to simultaneously visualize the images from the colonoscope, gastroscope, and choledochoscope made it possible to perform additional intraoperative endoscopic procedures without extra monitors or interference with the operations.

Conclusion

We present a novel use of the multi-input display program on the da Vinci Surgical System to facilitate the performance of intraoperative endoscopies during complex robotic operations. Our study offers another potentially beneficial application of the robotic surgery platform toward integration and simplification of combining additional procedures with complex minimally invasive operations.

Minimal access surgery for rectal cancer: an update

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery has many potential benefits, and the application of recently developed robotic technology to patients with colorectal diseases is rapidly gaining popularity.

QUALITY AND OUTCOMES

However, the literature evaluating such techniques, including the outcomes, risks, and costs, is limited. In this review, we evaluate and summarize the existing information, calling attention to areas where future investigation should occur.

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.

Is hybrid robotic laparoscopic assistance the ideal approach for restorative rectal cancer dissection?

AIM

While the use of robotic assistance in the management of rectal cancer has gradually increased in popularity over the years, the optimal technique is still under debate. The authors' preferred technique is a robotic low anterior resection that requires a hybrid approach with laparoscopic hand-assisted mobilization of the left colon and robotic assistance for rectal dissection. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of this approach as it relates to intra-operative and short-term outcomes.

METHOD

Between August 2005 and July 2011, consecutive patients undergoing rectal dissection for cancer via the hybrid robotic technique were included in our study. Demographics, margin positivity, intra-operative and short-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The preferred approach was performed in 77 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. Of these, 68 underwent low anterior resection and nine had a coloanal pull-through procedure (mean age 60.1 years; mean body mass index 28.0 kg/m(2) ; mean operative time 327 min; conversion rate 3.9%). Three patients (3.9%) had positive resection margins (one circumferential, two distal). Five patients had an anastomotic leak (6.4%). No robot-specific complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid approach involving hand-assisted left colon mobilization and robotic rectal dissection is a safe and feasible technique for minimally invasive low anterior resection. This approach can be considered an viable option for surgeons new to robotic rectal dissection.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

This article describes the operative technique that my colleagues and I apply to total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer. A body of data support improvement of short-term outcomes over open resection. Although long-term data remain scarce, several ongoing trials may clarify this deficiency. The appropriateness of laparoscopy in the treatment for rectal cancer should be carefully weighed with consideration of patient preferences, surgeon experience, and available infrastructure.

Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery was invented to overcome the demerits of laparoscopic technique. However, it is unclear whether robot-assisted colectomy (RAC) has significant clinical advantages over laparoscopically assisted colectomy (LAC) in treating colonic cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of RAC versus LAC for right-sided colonic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with right-sided colonic cancer were randomized to receive RAC or LAC. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were duration of operation, morbidity, postoperative pain, hospital costs and pathological quality of the specimen.

RESULTS

Of 71 patients randomized, 70 (35 in each group) were included in the analysis. Hospital stay, surgical complications, postoperative pain score, resection margin clearance and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar in both groups. The duration of surgery was longer in the RAC group (195 versus 130 min; P < 0·001). No conversion to open surgery was needed in either group. Overall hospital costs were significantly higher for RAC (US $ 12,235 versus $ 10,320; P = 0·013); the higher costs were attributed primarily to the costs of surgery, including consumables.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy was feasible but provided no benefit to justify the greater cost.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01042743 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Robotic-Assisted Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection in the Lithotomy Position: Technique and Early Outcomes

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection (E-APR) has been advocated as a superior procedure to achieve negative circumferential resection margins (CRMs) for sphincter-invading rectal cancers. An open total mesorectal excision is performed followed by perineal dissection with resection of the levators in the prone position. We describe a novel minimally invasive robotic approach carried out in the lithotomy position. Using the robotic arms to dissect the rectum and divide the levator fibers at their origin, the dissection is carried out in the ischiorectal space as distally as possible. From May to July 2011, six cases of robotic E-APR for rectal cancer were performed. The mean age was 54.5 years old. Mean operating time was 335 minutes. Mean estimated blood loss was 250 mL. There were no conversions to the open approach. A cylindrical specimen was obtained in all patients without perforation. All CRMs were negative. Mean hospital stay was 5 days. Two patients developed perineal wound infections and one developed a small bowel obstruction postoperatively. Robotic-assisted E-APR performed in the lithotomy position is safe and feasible. Future studies are needed to define the benefits of this technique.

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

BACKGROUND

Although open resection using a sphincter-saving operation (SSO) remains the standard of care for rectal cancer, few studies have compared open and robot-assisted (RA) SSOs. This study aimed to compare the operative features, functional outcomes, and oncological validity of open and RA SSO for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 200 rectal cancer patients undergoing curative SSO were enrolled prospectively. The open and RA groups (n = 100, respectively) were matched for clinical stage and operation type.

RESULTS

The mean operation time was significantly longer in the RA group than in the open group (188 vs. 103 min, P < 0.001), but it was significantly reduced in the latter half of the RA patients compared with that in the first half (164 vs. 214 min, P < 0.001). The mean distal resection margin was significantly longer in the RA than in the open group (2.7 vs. 1.9 cm; P = 0.001), but only one patient in either group had positive circumferential resection margin. Bowel peristalsis returned one day earlier in the RA than in the open group (P < 0.001). Postoperative complication rates and anorectal functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups. The operator's physical discomfort, assessed on a visual analog scale, was significantly lower in the RA than in the open group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this short-term study, the RA SSO showed equivalent oncological safety, functional outcome, and morbidities to open SSO. Although the operation takes longer, the robotic system enables a technically versatile SSO with fine dissection in a limited surgical field.

Robotic-assisted proctectomy for inflammatory bowel disease: a case-matched comparison of laparoscopic and robotic technique

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

This is an IRB-approved case-matched review. Seventeen robotic proctectomies (RP), 10 with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) and 7 completion (CP), were matched to laparoscopic proctectomies (LP). Short-term and functional outcomes were compared between LP and RP.

RESULTS

In CP cohort, operative times were longer in the RP group (351 RP vs 238 LP min, p = 0.03), mean robotic time 90 min. Estimated blood loss (EBL) was similar between RP-CP and LP-CP groups (p = 0.18). Return of bowel function (RBF) was slower in RP-CP group (3.0 vs 1.7 days, p = 0.04), and length of stay (LOS) was longer (6.4 vs 4.1 days, p = 0.02). In the IPAA group, there were no differences between operative times (p = 0.14), robotic time 86 min; EBL (p = 0.15), and postoperative complications. Return of bowel function (3.6 vs 2.6 days, p = 0.3) and LOS (8.5 vs 6.1 days, p = 0.17) were similar between RP and LP. Bowel and sexual function were equivalent between LP and RP-IPAA groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic proctectomy is a safe and effective technique for patients with IBD. It is comparable to LP with regard to perioperative outcomes, complications, and short-term functional results.