Urinary and erectile function in men after total mesorectal excision by laparoscopic or robot-assisted methods for the treatment of rectal cancer: a case-matched comparison. World J Surg. 2014;38:1834-1842. [PMID: 24366278 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2419-5]

High prevalence of erectile dysfunction within the first year after surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the prevalence of erectile dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery within the first year.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Erectile dysfunction is a late complication of surgery for rectal cancer. Intraoperative mechanical nerve damage is a probable cause, but it can also be attributed to radio- and chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review per our protocol (CRD42023472998), searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL in August 2023. We included studies reporting on men having surgery for rectal cancer and providing a prevalence of erectile dysfunction based on validated questionnaires published after 1997. The prevalence was estimated through forest plots. Bias was evaluated according to a checklist from the Joanna Briggs Institute.

RESULTS

Of the 4105 records identified in the search, we included 74 studies reporting on 9006 patients operated for rectal cancer. The studies evaluated erectile dysfunction through six validated questionnaires, especially the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) version 5 or 15 (84 %). The meta-analysis on 22 studies using IIEF showed that the prevalence of moderate to severe erectile dysfunction was 35 % (95 % CI 24-47 %) within the first year after surgery with very low certainty of evidence. Meta-regression on the prevalence of moderate to severe erectile dysfunction did not show a decrease in erectile dysfunction within the first year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Around every third patient experienced moderate to severe erectile dysfunction within the first year after surgery for rectum cancer, and the prevalence of erectile dysfunction did not improve within the first year after surgery.

MINI-ABSTRACT

This is a meta-analysis investigating the prevalence of erectile dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery within the first year. Erectile dysfunction was determined on the base of validated self-administered questionnaires. Moderate to severe erectile dysfunction was seen in one-third of patients within the first year after surgery for rectal cancer.

Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients' functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients' functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] -0 .15 [- 0.24 to - 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.

Comparison of a robotic surgery program for rectal cancer: short- and long-term results from a comparative, retrospective study between two laparoscopic and robotic reference centers

BACKGROUND

It is assumed that robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) may facilitate complex pelvic dissection for rectal cancer compared to the laparoscopic-assisted resection (LAR). The aim of this study was to compare perioperative morbidity, short- and long-term oncologic, and functional outcomes between the RAS and LAR approaches.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2021, all rectal cancers operated on by (LAR) or (RAS) were retrospectively reviewed in two colorectal surgery centers.

RESULTS

A total of 197 patients were included in the study, with 70% in the LAR group and 30% in the RAS group. The tumor location and stage were identical in both groups (not significant = NS). The overall postoperative mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups. (0% LAR; 0.5% RAS; NS). The postoperative morbidity was similar between the two groups (60% LAR vs 57% RAS; NS). The number of early surgical re-interventions within the first 30 days was similar (10% for the LAR group and 3% for the RAS group; NS). The rate of complete TME was similar (88% for the LAR group and 94% for the RAS group; NS). However, the rate of circumferential R1 was significantly higher in the LAR group (13%) compared to the RAS group (2%) (p = 0.009). The 3-year recurrence rate did not differ between the two groups (77% for both groups; NS). After a mean follow-up of three years, the incidence of anterior resection syndrome was significantly lower in the LAR group compared to the RAS group (54 vs 76%; p = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a RAS was found to be reliable for oncologic outcomes and morbidity. However, the expected benefits for functional outcomes were not observed. Therefore, the added value of RAS for rectal cancer needs to be reassessed in light of new laparoscopic technologies and patient management options.

Urinary and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of the study was to compare the protective effects of robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) on urinary and sexual function of patients. We conducted a systematic search in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies comparing the impact of RRCS and LRCS on urinary function and sexual function. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the Female Sexual Function Index(FSFI) were used to evaluate the urinary function and sexual function of patients. A total of 13 studies comprising 1964 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 3 randomized controlled trials, 5 retrospective cohort studies, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 2 propensity score-matched studies. Nine hundred and fifty-nine patients underwent RRCS and 1005 patients underwent LRCS. Statistical analysis of the IPSS scores indicated urinary function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively [mean difference (MD), - 1.06, 95% CI - 1.85 to - 0.28; and MD, - 0.96, 95% CI - 1.60 to - 0.32; and MD, - 1.09, 95% CI - 1.72 to - 0.46]. Statistical analysis of the IIEF-5 scores indicated male sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 1.76, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.72; and MD, 1.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.33; and MD, 1.05, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.01). Statistical analysis of the FSFI scores indicated female sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 2.86; 95% CI 1.38 to 4.35; and MD, 4.19; 95% CI 1.85 to 6.54). RRCS is more favorable than LRCS in preserving the urinary and sexual function of patients with rectal cancer.

The urinary and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To compare the urinary and sexual outcomes between robot-assisted rectal cancer (RC) surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic RC surgery (LRCS) using a meta-analysis, searches were conducted of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was the primary outcome. Eleven studies (790 patients with RRCS and 888 with LRCS) were included. The IPSS scores were significantly lower for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3 months (weighted mean difference [WMD] =  - 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 1.8,-0.62, I2 = 89.9%), to 6 months (WMD =  - 1.13, 95% CI: - 1.74, - 0.52, I2 = 93.3%), and to 12 months (WMD =  - 0.93, 95% CI: - 1.59, - 0.26, I2 = 93.8%). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores were significantly higher for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3 months (WMD = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.28, 5.44, I2 = 92.7%). The female sexual function index (FSFI) scores were significantly higher for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3 months (WMD = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.76, I2 = 0), to 6 months (WMD = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.93, 2.79, I2 = 24.3%), and to 12 months (WMD = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.41, 2.93, I2 = 90.9%). RRCS also achieved a better recovery of the urological and sexual function than LRCS for patients with RC. Larger-scale prospective randomized control trials are needed to verify these results.

Robotic-assisted surgery for left-sided colon and rectal resections is associated with reduction in the postoperative surgical stress response and improved short-term outcomes: a cohort study

INTRODUCTION

There is growing evidence that the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in colorectal cancer resections is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS), possibly through a reduced systemic inflammatory response (SIR). Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is a sensitive SIR biomarker and its utility in the early identification of post-operative complications has been validated in a variety of surgical procedures. There remains a paucity of studies characterising post-operative SIR in RAS.

METHODS

Retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients undergoing OS, LS and RAS for left-sided and rectal cancer in a single high-volume unit. Patient and disease characteristics, post-operative CRP levels, and clinical outcomes were reviewed, and their relationships explored within binary logistic regression and propensity scores matched models.

RESULTS

A total of 1031 patients were included (483 OS, 376 LS, and 172 RAS). RAS and LS were associated with lower CRP levels across the first 4 post-operative days (p < 0.001) as well as reduced complications and length of stay compared to OS in unadjusted analyses. In binary logistic regression models, RAS was independently associated with lower CRP levels at Day 3 post-operatively (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59, p < 0.001) and a reduction in the rate of all complications (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, p < 0.001) and major complications (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p = 0.036). Within a propensity scores matched model comparing LS versus RAS specifically, RAS was associated with lower post-operative CRP levels in the first two post-operative days, a lower proportion of patients with a CRP ≥ 150 mg/L at Day 3 (20.9% versus 30.5%, p = 0.036) and a lower rate of all complications (34.7% versus 46.7%, p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

The present observational study shows that an RAS approach was associated with lower postoperative SIR, and a better postoperative complications profile.

Learning process analysis of robotic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for local advanced rectal cancer: the CUSUM curve of 78 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

Robotic lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) has been described as a safe and feasible procedure for local advanced rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve for robotic-assisted LLND.

METHODS

We collected data on 78 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-LLND at our hospital. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to assess changes in the unilateral LLND operative times across the case sequence.

RESULTS

Among the 78 patients, 52 underwent bilateral LLND and 26 underwent unilateral LLND. A total of 130 consecutive data were recorded. We arranged unilateral robotic-LLND operative times and calculated cumulative sum values, allowing the differentiation of three phases: phase I (learning period, cases 1-51); phase II (proficiency period, cases 52-83); and phase III (mastery period, cases 84-130). As the learning curve accumulated, the operation time and estimated blood loss of unilateral robotic-LLND decreased significantly with each phase (P < 0.05). By 12 months after surgery, the International Prostatic Symptom Score of patients at phase III was significantly lower than at phase I (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The CUSUM curve shows three phases in the learning of robotic-LLND. The estimated learning curve for robotic-assisted rectal-LLND is achieved after 51 cases.

Patient Reported Outcomes following Cancer of the Rectum (PROCaRe): protocol of a prospective multicentre international study

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer surgery presents challenges in achieving good oncological results and preserving functional outcomes. Different surgical approaches, including open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal techniques, have been employed, but there is a lack of consensus on the optimal approach, particularly in terms of functional results. This study aims to assess bowel function and to compare outcomes of patients that had undergone surgery for mid-low rectal cancer across different surgical approaches.

METHOD

This is an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria are patients diagnosed with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection, eligible for different surgical approaches for total mesorectal excision (TME). Data will be collected using validated questionnaires assessing bowel, sexual and urinary function, and quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include short-term postoperative results. Data will be collected at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after index surgery or stoma reversal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide insights into the impact of different approaches for TME on bowel, sexual and urinary function, and overall QOL of patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. The findings will provide important information to optimise the surgical strategy and to improve patient care in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04936581 (registered 23 June 2021).

The erectile and ejaculatory implications of the surgical management of rectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Although advances in surgical technology and technique have decreased mortality rates, surviving patients often experience sexual dysfunction as a common complication. The development of the lower anterior resection has greatly decreased the use of the radical abdominoperineal resection surgery, but even the less radical surgery can result in sexual dysfunction, including erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction. Improving the knowledge of the underlying causes of sexual dysfunction in this context and developing effective strategies for preventing and treating these adverse effects are essential to improving the quality of life for postoperative rectal cancer patients. This article aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction in postoperative rectal cancer patients, including their pathophysiology and time course and strategies for prevention and treatment.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of long-term survival and urogenital functional outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgical technology has been widely introduced and applied in various fields of surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze long-term oncological and urogenital functional outcomes following laparoscopic/robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We identified studies that compared oncological and functional outcomes following laparoscopic TME (LTME) and robotic TME (RTME) for treatment of rectal cancer over the past 16 years. Data related to overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) were subjected to meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There was no difference in long-term OS and DFS in the pooled data. Compared with LTME, there were significant differences in the score of IPSS at 3, 6 and 12 months for RTME, in the pooled data for male patients. There were significant differences in IIEF score for male patients at 3 and 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LTME, RTME has better preservation of urinary and sexual functions and comparable long-term oncological outcome in rectal cancer.

Patient-Related Functional Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Rectal Surgery Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained significant momentum in rectal cancer surgery. Most studies focus on short-term and oncological outcomes, showing similar outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Increasing survivorship mandates greater emphasis on quality of life and long-term function.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare quality of life and urinary, sexual, and lower GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgeries.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials Register, and Cochrane Library-identified articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic rectal resections was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures were quality of life and urinary, sexual, and GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection patient groups. Where comparable data were available, results were pooled for analysis.

RESULTS

The initial search revealed 1777 papers; 101 were reviewed in full, and 14 studies were included for review. Eleven assessed male sexual function; 7 favored robotic surgery, and the remaining studies showed no significant difference. Pooled analysis of 5 studies reporting rates of male sexual dysfunction at 12 months showed significantly lower rates after robotic surgery (OR, 0.51; p = 0.043). Twelve studies compared urinary function. Six favored robotic surgery, but in 2 studies, a difference was seen at 6 months but not sustained at 12 months. Pooled analysis of 4 studies demonstrated significantly better urinary function scores at 12 months after robotic surgery (OR, 0.26; p = 0.016). Quality of life and GI function were equivalent, but very little data exist for these parameters.

LIMITATIONS

A small number of studies compare outcomes between these groups; only 2 are randomized. Different scoring systems limit comparisons and pooling of data.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available data suggest that robotic rectal cancer resection improves male sexual and urinary functions when compared with laparoscopy, but there is no difference in quality of life or GI function. Future studies should report all facets of functional outcomes using standardized scoring systems.

Quality of life and functional outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-results from the implementation period in Denmark

BACKGROUND

The standard operation for mid- and low rectal cancer total mesorectal excision (TME) is routinely performed as minimally invasive surgery. TME is associated with temporary or permanent functional impairment of pelvic organs, causing reduced quality of life (QoL). Concerns have been raised that the newest minimally invasive approach, transanal TME (TaTME), may further reduce urogenital and anorectal functions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if functional outcomes affecting QoL are altered after TaTME. Primary end-point is the impact of TaTME on QoL and functional outcomes. Secondary end-point is assessing differences in QoL and functional outcomes after TME surgery from below (TaTME) or above (transabdominal TME).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Observational study consisting of prospectively registered self-reported questionnaire data collected at baseline and follow-ups after TaTME. All patients who underwent TaTME during the Danish national implementation phase were included. Central surveillance of the implementation included questionnaires concerning QoL and functional outcomes. Analyses of functional results from the Danish cohort of the ROLARR trial (Jayne et al. in JAMA 318:1569-1580, (2017) are reported separately for perspective, representing the transabdominal approach to TME, i.e., laparoscopic- or robotic-assisted TME (LaTME/RoTME). Applied questionnaires include EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, LARS, ICIQ-MLUTS, ICIQ-FLUTS, IPSS, IIEF, SVQ, and FSFI.

RESULTS

A total of 115 TaTME procedures were registered August 2016 to April 2019. LaTME/RoTME patients (n = 92) were operated on January 2011 to September 2014. A temporary postoperative decrease of QoL (global health status and functional scales) was observed, yet long-term results were unaffected by surgery in both groups. In TaTME patients, the anorectal dysfunction increased significantly (p < 0.001) from preoperative baseline to 13.5 months follow-up, where 67.5% (n = 52) reported major LARS symptoms. Urinary function was not significantly impaired after TME regardless of technique. The paucity of responses concerning sexual function precludes conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although an initial reduction in QoL after TME occurs, it normalizes within the first year postoperatively. In concurrence with international results, we found that significant anorectal dysfunction is common after TaTME. No data on anorectal function was available for LaTME/RoTME patients for comparison. We found no indications that transanal TME is inferior to transabdominal TME surgery concerning urogenital functions or health-related QoL.

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

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

Male urogenital function after robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort study

Background

Urogenital dysfunction is recognized as a serious complication affecting patient quality of life after rectal cancer surgery to treat rectal cancer; however, the studies focus on the urogenital function after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery are limited.

Methods

Male patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) were prospectively enrolled. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scale were used to compare the urogenital function of the two groups preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

Results

Eighty-nine patients who planned to undergo R-TME and L-TME were prospectively enrolled; 77 patients of these patients (86.5%) completed all questionnaires at all time points and were thus included in the final analysis. Of the included patients, 38 underwent R-TME and 39 underwent L-TME. There was no significant difference in age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor location, neoadjuvant therapy, operation method, postoperative pathological results and adjuvant therapy between the two groups. Preoperative urogenital function was similar in both groups; however, the IPSS was significantly lower in R-TME patients than that in T-TME patients at 6 months and 12 months [(7.82 ± 2.25 vs. 9.95 ± 3.01, P = 0.006; 7.62 ± 2.5 vs. 9.12 ± 2.64, P = 0.012)]. IIEF-5 scores decreased 3 months after R-TME and L-TME surgery (14.87 ± 3.27 vs. 13.92 ± 3.62, p = 0.231) and then gradually increased; at 12 months, IIEF-5 scores were comparable to those at baseline in both groups. IIEF-5 scores were higher in R-TME patients than those in L-TME patients at 6 months (18.55 ± 3.45 vs. 16.75 ± 3.26, P = 0.021), but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 12 months (21.22 ± 3.06 vs. 19.95 ± 3.03, P = 0.071).

Conclusions

The robotic approach for TME was associated with more rapid restoration of male urogenital function than the laparoscopic approach.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resections for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgery has evolved with the advent of laparoscopic techniques and now robotic-assisted surgery. There is significant literature supporting the use of laparoscopic techniques over open surgery with evidence of enhanced post-operative recovery, reduced use of opioids, smaller incisions and equivalent oncological outcomes. Robotic minimally invasive surgery addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, providing surgical precision and improvements in perception and dexterity with a resulting decrease in tissue damage.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent robotic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction in our institution since our robotic programme began in 2017. Patient demographics were identified via electronic databases and patient charts. A matched cohort of laparoscopic cases was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 51 consecutive robotic-assisted anterior resections were identified and case matched with laparoscopic resections for comparison. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04), reduced initial post-operative analgesia requirements (p < 0.01) and no significant difference in time to bowel movement or stoma functioning (p = 0.84). All patients had an R0 resection, and there was no statistical difference in lymph node yield between the groups (p = 0.14). Robotic surgery was associated with a longer operative duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this early experience, robotic surgery has proven feasible and safe and is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in terms of completeness of resection and recovery. As costs and operating times decline and as technology progresses, robotic surgery may one day replace traditional laparoscopic techniques.

Functional Outcomes after Transanal Surgery

Transanal surgery has gained in popularity during the latter part of the last decade for both rectal cancer and benign disease. The current role for local excision of early rectal neoplastic lesions has expanded due to better understanding of risk factors for lymph node metastasis and heightened awareness for the long-term sequelae of radical surgery. Transanal resection of the rectum (both for cancer or inflammatory bowel diseases) has now been established as a successful procedure that overcomes some of the limitations of the abdominal approaches. Once the feasibility, safety, and the oncologic results of transanal minimally invasive approaches for patients with rectal cancer have been acknowledged, quality of life and functional outcomes have become increasingly important issues. This article provides an overview of the different techniques currently available for the minimally invasive transanal treatment of rectal lesions, particularly focusing on functional outcomes.

Comparison of postoperative laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision on lower urinary tract function in men with rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated male voiding dysfunction (VD) or lower urinary tract function in rectal cancer (RC) patients after laparoscopic or open total mesorectal excision with pelvic autonomic nerve preservation (PANP).

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-seven male RC patients admitted between January 2016 and May 2019 were enrolled in this study, 112 of whom underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and 75 underwent open total mesorectal excision (OTME). The International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The postoperative IPSS in patients with RC was elevated on day 7 and gradually decreased during the first month after surgery. Compared with the OTME group, the IPSS scores decreased less in the LTME group at week 1, and months 1 and 3 postoperatively (6.82 ± 2.13 vs 10.15 ± 3.86, 5.70 ± 2.45 vs 7.21 ± 2.0, and 5.01 ± 2.09 vs 5.75 ± 2.55, respectively; P < 0.05). The VD rate was significantly lower in the LTME group than the OTME group at 1, 2, and 3 weeks postoperatively (21.4% vs 26.8%,13.4% vs 25.3%, and 9.8% vs18.6%, respectively; P < 0.05); however, there was no major difference in the incidence of VD 6 months postoperatively between the two groups (P > 0.05). VD was more frequent in the OTME group than the LTME group 6 months postoperatively, but the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 1.857, 95% CI, 0.964-3.645, P = 0.064).

CONCLUSIONS

LTME may be superior to OTME with respect to PANP of lower urinary tract function in males with RC.

Lower Incidence of Postoperative Urinary Retention in Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer Compared with Laparoscopic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The incidence and clinical significance of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) remain high. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of POUR and related risk factors in patients who underwent total mesorectal excision (TMR) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected colorectal database from a single center. Data from patients who underwent surgery for low rectal cancer between September 2006 and May 2017 were analyzed to assess the risk factors of POUR. POUR was considered inability to void after urinary catheter removal requiring catheter reinsertion and difficulty in bladder emptying requiring intermittent catheterization.

RESULTS

Of 555 patients with low rectal cancer, 78 (14.1%) developed POUR. Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, laparoscopic TMR (odds ratio [OR]; 2.114, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.212-3.689, p = 0.008) and postoperative ileus (OR; 2.389, 95% CI; 1.282-4.450, p = 0.006) were independent risk factors of POUR. Male gender, advanced age, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, longer operative time, abdominoperineal resection, and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection were not associated with POUR. Advanced age over 65 years also failed to show statistical significance (OR; 1.604, 95% CI; 0.965-2.668, p = 0.068).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach and postoperative ileus are risk factors for POUR after low rectal cancer surgery. We postulate that the benefits of robotic surgical systems compared to a laparoscopic approach may reduce the incidence of POUR.

Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer

Utilization of robotic surgical systems has increased over the years. Robotic surgery is presumed to have advantages of enhanced visualization, improved dexterity, and reduced tremor, which is purported to be more suitable for rectal cancer surgery in a confined space than laparoscopic or open surgery. However, evidence supporting improved clinical and oncologic outcomes after robotic surgery remains controversial and limited despite the widespread adoption of robotic surgical systems. To date, numerous observational studies and a few randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate that short-term, oncological, and functional outcomes after a robotic surgery are superior to those of laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer patients. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on low-lying rectal cancer.

The role of transanal total mesorectal excision

At inception, transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was hypothesized to be a solution for several problems encountered in pelvic surgery, particularly for distal rectal cancer. The transanal part of the procedure is less hampered by patient related factors such as visceral obesity and a narrow bony pelvis and can thus overcome access and visualization problems encountered with a pure abdominal approach. Clearly, as for any new technique, a learning curve needs to be negotiated, ideally without unacceptable harm to patients. Once in experienced hands, TaTME might overcome challenges found in anatomically challenging rectal cancer patients as well as for other indications. The role of TaTME is not to replace, but rather complement its abdominal counterpart.

Comparison of the quality of total mesorectal excision after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and disease-free and overall survival rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for rectal cancer.

Methods

From January 2015 to December 2018, 234 patients underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer at two centers. Ultimately, 201 patients were enrolled. To control for different demographic factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were generated with the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative radiation. Finally, 134 patients were matched with 67 patients in the robotic surgery group and 67 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group.

Results

There was no significant difference in the pathologic stages between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. Distal margin involvement was only observed in the robotic surgery group (1/67, 1.5%). Circumferential resection margin involvement was not different between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (3/67 [4.5%] and 4/67 [6.0%], respectively, P=1.000). The quality of TME (complete, nearly complete, and incomplete) was similar between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (88.0%, 6.0%, 6.0% and 79.1%, 9.0%, 11.9%, respectively, P=0.358). The disease-free and overall survival rates were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusion

The quality of TME and disease-free and overall survival rates between the two surgeries were similar. There was no oncologic advantage of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

Comparison of the short-term operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes between two types of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Da Vinci versus Micro Hand S surgical robot

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the difference of two various robotic technology applied in R- Total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

From May 2017 to December 2018, consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent da Vinci R-TME or Micro Hand S R-TME were enrolled. The comparative study was conducted on Short-term Operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes between two type of R-TME.

RESULTS

47 patients underwent da Vinci R-TME, and 43 patients underwent Micro Hand S R-TME. No difference occured between two groups in TME completeness, CRM, DRM, CRM involvement and DRM involvement, operative time, blood loss, protective ileostomy, conversion rate, number of retrieved lymph nodes, Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or Wexner scores. However, the setup time in the Micro Hand S group was longer.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, both da Vinci R-TME and Micro Hand S R-TME achieve excellent TME quality with acceptable morbidity and postoperative function.

Urogenital function following robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mixed results are reported on clinical and cancer outcomes in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) compared with robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRCS). However, more favourable functional outcomes are reported following RRCS. This study compared urinary and sexual function following RRCS and LRCS in male and female patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of urinary and sexual function after RRCS and LRCS was performed following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines, and registered prospectively with PROSPERO (ID:CRD42020164285). The functional outcome reporting tools most commonly included: the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Mean scores and changes in mean scores from baseline were analysed using RevMan version 5.3.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included reporting on 1286 patients. Some 672 patients underwent LRCS, of whom 380 (56.5 per cent) were men and 116 (17.3 per cent) were women (gender not specified in 176 patients, 26.2 per cent). A total of 614 patients underwent RRCS, of whom 356 (58.0 per cent) were men and 83 (13.5 per cent) were women (gender not specified in 175 patients, 28.5 per cent). Regarding urinary function in men at 6 months after surgery, IPSS scores were significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group (mean difference (MD) -1.36, 95 per cent c.i. -2.31 to -0.40; P = 0.005), a trend that persisted at 12 months (MD -1.08, -1.85 to -0.30; P = 0.007). ΔIIEF scores significantly favoured RRCS at 6 months [MD -3.11 (95%CI -5.77, -0.44) P <0.021] and 12 months [MD -2.76 (95%CI -3.63, -1.88) P <0.001] post-operatively. Mixed urinary and sexual function outcomes were reported for women.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis identified more favourable urinary and erectile function in men who undergo robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Outcomes in women did not identify a consistently more favourable outcome in either group. As robotic rectal cancer surgery may offer more favourable functional outcomes it should be considered and discussed with patients.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Potential urinary function benefits of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introductory phase

We aimed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introduction phase. This study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent initial robotic surgery (n = 36) vs. patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 95) for rectal cancer. We compared the clinical and pathological characteristics of patients using a propensity score analysis and clarified short-term outcomes, urinary function, and sexual function at the time of robotic surgery introduction. The mean surgical duration was longer in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group (288.4 vs. 245.2 min, respectively; p = 0.051). With lateral pelvic lymph node dissection, no significant difference was observed in surgical duration (508.0 min for robot-assisted laparoscopy vs. 480.4 min for conventional laparoscopy; p = 0.595). The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group (15 days vs. 13.0 days, respectively; p = 0.026). Conversion to open surgery was not necessary in either group. The International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly lower in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group. Moderate-to-severe symptoms were more frequently observed in the conventional laparoscopy group compared with the robot-assisted laparoscopy group (p = 0.051). Robotic surgery is safe and could improve functional disorder after rectal cancer surgery in the introduction phase. This may depend on the surgeon’s experience in performing robotic surgery and strictly confined criteria in Japan.

Implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision by multiple surgeons in a large teaching hospital: Morbidity, long-term oncological and functional outcome

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) might offer benefits in less morbidity, better functional and long-term outcome over laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing robot-assisted TME for rectal cancer during implementation between May 2015 and December 2019 performed by five surgeons in a single centre were included. Outcomes included local recurrence rate at 3 years, conversion rate, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity rate, 30-day postoperative morbidity and outcomes of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaires.

RESULTS

In 105 robot-assisted TME, local recurrence rate at 3 years was 7.4%, conversion to open surgery rate was 8.6%, CRM positivity rate was 5.7%, 73.3% had good quality specimen, postoperative morbidity rate was 47.6% and anastomotic leakage rate was 9.0%. Incidence of major LARS was 55.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

results of this study described acceptable morbidity, functional and long-term outcome during implementation of robotic TME for rectal cancer by multiple surgeons in a single centre.

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.

Optimising functional outcomes in rectal cancer surgery

Background

By improved surgical technique such as total mesorectal excision (TME), multimodal treatment and advances in imaging survival and an increased rate of sphincter preservation have been achieved in rectal cancer surgery. Minimal-invasive approaches such as laparoscopic, robotic and transanal-TME (ta-TME) enhance recovery after surgery. Nevertheless, disorders of bowel, anorectal and urogenital function are still common and need attention.

Purpose

This review aims at exploring the causes of dysfunction after anterior resection (AR) and the accordingly preventive strategies. Furthermore, the indication for low AR in the light of functional outcome is discussed. The last therapeutic strategies to deal with bowel, anorectal, and urogenital disorders are depicted.

Conclusion

Functional disorders after rectal cancer surgery are frequent and underestimated. More evidence is needed to define an indication for non-operative management or local excision as alternatives to AR. The decision for restorative resection should be made in consideration of the relevant risk factors for dysfunction. In the case of restoration, a side-to-end anastomosis should be the preferred anastomotic technique. Further high-evidence clinical studies are required to clarify the benefit of intraoperative neuromonitoring. While the function of ta-TME seems not to be superior to laparoscopy, case-control studies suggest the benefits of robotic TME mainly in terms of preservation of the urogenital function. Low AR syndrome is treated by stool regulation, pelvic floor therapy, and transanal irrigation. There is good evidence for sacral nerve modulation for incontinence after low AR.

Carcinoembryonic Antigen Improves the Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Prediction of Pathologic Response after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Patients with Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in improving the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the prediction of pathologic response after the neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) for patients with rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 524 rectal cancer patients who underwent NCRT and total mesorectal excision between January 2009 and December 2014. The performances of MRI with or without CEA parameters (initial CEA and CEA dynamics) for prediction of pathologic tumor response grade (pTRG) were compared by receiver-operating characteristic analysis with DeLong's method. Cox regression was used to identify the independent factors associated to pTRG and disease-free survival (DFS) after NCRT.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 64.0 months (range, 3.0 to 113.0 months). On multivariate analysis, poor tumor regression grade on MRI (mrTRG; p < 0.001), initial CEA (p < 0.001) and the mesorectal fascia involvement on MRI before NCRT (mrMFI; p=0.054) showed association with poor pTRG. The mrTRG plus CEA parameters showed significantly improved performances in the prediction of pTRG than mrTRG alone. All of mrTRG, mrMFI, and initial CEA were also identified as independent factors associated with DFS. The initial CEA further discriminated DFS in the subgroups with good mrTRG or that without mrMFI.

CONCLUSION

The CEA parameters significantly improved the performance of MRI in the prediction of pTRG after NCRT for patients with rectal cancer. The DFS was further discriminated by initial CEA level in the groups with favorable MRI parameters.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature

The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly increased in Japan, since the government approved the procedure for national insurance coverage in April 2018. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome some limitations of laparoscopic surgery, especially in the narrow pelvis, providing a three-dimensional view, articulated instruments, and a stable camera platform. Although meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate the superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery with respect to the short-term clinical outcomes, the published findings suggest that robotic surgery may be potentially beneficial for patients who are obese, male, or patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. The safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for lateral lymph node dissection, the standard procedure for locally advanced lower rectal cancer in Japan, have been demonstrated in some retrospective studies. However, additional prospective, randomized trials are required to determine the actual benefits of robotic surgery to ameliorate the urogenital and oncological outcomes. The cost of this approach is a long-standing principal concern. A literature search showed that the cost of robotic surgery for rectal cancer was 1.3-2.5 times higher per patient than that for the laparoscopic approach. We herein describe our surgical technique using a da Vinci Surgical System (S/Si/Xi) with 10 years of experience in performing robotic surgery. We also review current evidence regarding short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes, lateral lymph node dissection, and the cost of the procedure.

Rate of conversion to an open procedure is reduced in patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery: A single-institution experience

Background

Robotic-assisted surgery is becoming increasingly used in colorectal operations. It has many advantages over laparoscopic surgery including three-dimensional viewing, motion scaling, improved dexterity and ergonomics as well as increased precision. However, there are also disadvantages to robotic surgery such as lack of tactile feedback, cost as well as limitations on multi-quadrant surgeries. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of conversion to an open surgery in patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery for neoplastic and dysplastic disease from 2009 to 2016 were identified and examined retrospectively. The statistical software SAS, manufactured by SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina. Continuous variables were analysed using analysis of variance test. Chi-square test was used to analyse categorical variables. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Two hundred and thirty-five patients were identified that underwent minimally invasive colorectal surgery. One hundred and sixty-four underwent laparoscopic resection and 71 underwent robotic-assisted resection. There was no statistical difference in gender or race between the two groups (both P > 0.05). Patients that underwent robotic-assisted resection were slightly younger than patients that underwent laparoscopic resection (61.6 years vs. 65.6 years; P= 0.02). When examining conversion to an open procedure, patients that underwent robotic-assisted resection had a significantly lower chance of conversion than did the patients undergoing a laparoscopic approach (11.27% vs. 29.78%; P= 0.0018).

Conclusion

Conversion rates from a minimally invasive procedure to an open procedure appear to be lower with robotic-assisted surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness

Robotic surgery is considered as one of the advanced treatment modality of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic rectal surgery has been performed for three decades and its application is gradually expanding along with technology development. It has several technical advantages which include magnified three-dimensional vision, better ergonomics, multiple articulated robotic instruments, and the opportunity to perform remote surgery. The technical benefits of robotic system can help to manipulate more meticulously during technical challenging procedures including total mesorectal excision in narrow pelvis, lateral pelvic node dissection, and intersphincteric resection. It is also reported that robotic rectal surgery have been shown more favorable postoperative functional outcomes. Despite its technical benefits, a majority of studies have been reported that there is rarely clinical or oncologic superiority of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. In addition, robotic rectal surgery showed significantly higher costs than the standard method. Hence, the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery is still questionable. In order for robotic rectal surgery to further develop in the field of minimally invasive surgery, there should be an obvious cost-effective advantages over laparoscopic surgery, and it is crucial that large-scale prospective randomized trials are required. Positive competition of industries in correlation with technological development may gradually reduce the price of the robotic system, and it will be helpful to increase the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery.

Robotic surgery in colorectal cancer: the way forward or a passing fad

Introduced mainly to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopy, robotic colorectal surgery (CRS) has been touted to provide superior optics, ergonomics, and surgeon autonomy. This technological advancement is nonetheless associated with certain drawbacks, mainly involving its cost and the lack of unequivocal benefit over conventional laparoscopy. In this era of evidence-based medicine, robotic CRS remains predominantly a subject of individual institution case series, retrospective studies, matched comparisons at best, and repeated reviews of the above literature. This article provides a critique of the more contemporary data regarding the use of robotics in colorectal cancer surgery and the controversies surrounding the literature.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Robotic surgery has been recently used as a novel tool for rectal surgery. This study assessed the current evidence regarding the efficiency, safety, and potential advantages of robotic rectal surgery (RRS) compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery (LRS). Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the 2 approaches. Results. Seven RCTs including a total of 1022 cases were identified. The conversion rate is significantly lower for RRS (odds ratio: 0.29; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 0.96; P = .04). The length of the distal margin was significantly shorter in the LRS group than in the RRS group (weighted mean difference: 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 1.10; P = .02). Perioperative complication rates, harvested lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margins, complete total mesorectal excision, first flatus, and length of stay did not differ significantly between approaches ( P > .05). Conclusions. This meta-analysis indicates that RRS is a safe and effective approach. It is not inferior to LRS in terms of oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications. Future large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Long-term Oncologic Outcomes After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Followed by Intersphincteric Resection With Coloanal Anastomosis for Locally Advanced Low Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

To date only few data have been available relating to the oncologic safety of intersphincteric resection in such advanced tumors.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate the oncologic outcomes and clinical factors affecting the long-term survival of patients who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by intersphincteric resection for locally advanced rectal cancers.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected departmental data.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a department of colorectal surgery in a tertiary care teaching hospital between January 2009 and September 2015.

PATIENTS

A cohort of 147 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer undergoing intersphincteric resection after preoperative chemoradiotherapy was included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to evaluate the 3-year disease-free survival and local recurrence rates. Logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the influence of tumor response and other prognostic factors on survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 34 months (range, 8-94 mo). The estimated overall 3-year disease-free survival and local recurrence rates were 64.9% and 11.7%. Circumferential resection margin involvement and pathologic T stage (ypT stage) were significant predictors of cancer relapse. The 3-year disease-free survival was 47.4% for patients with ypT3 tumors compared with 82.0% for those with ypT0-2 tumors (p = 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival was 36.5% for patients with involved circumferential resection margins compared with 69.7% for those with a noninvolved circumferential resection margin (p = 0.003). On multivariate analysis, ypT stage, ymrT stage, and circumferential resection margin status were associated with worse disease-free survival. Clinical T-stage and pathologic distal margin status were not independent factors affecting oncologic outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited with respect to its retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

In these patients with locally advanced low rectal cancers, intersphincteric resection after preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with acceptable oncologic outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A941.

Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the intestinal function recovery time and other short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) for rectal cancer. This is a retrospective study using a prospectively collected database. Patients’ records were obtained from Gansu Provincial Hospital between July 2015 and October 2017. Eighty patients underwent R-TME, and 116 with the same histopathological stage of the tumor underwent an L-TME. Both operations were performed by the same surgeon, comparing intra- and postoperative outcomes intergroups. The time to the first passage of flatus ( P < 0.001), the time to the first postoperative oral fluid intake ( P < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay ( P < 0.01) of the R-TME group were about three days faster than those in the L-TME group. The rate of conversion to open laparotomy ( P = 0.038) and postoperative urinary retention ( P = 0.016) were significantly lower in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group. Intraoperative blood loss of the R-TME group was more than that of the L-TME group ( P < 0.01).The operation time, number of lymph nodes harvested, and rate of positive circumferential resection margin were similar intergroup. The total cost of the R-TME group was higher than that of the L-TME group, but with a lack of statistical significance (85,623.91 ± 13,310.50 vs 67,356.79 ± 17,107.68 CNY, P = 0.084). The R-TME is safe and effective and has better postoperative short-term outcomes and faster intestinal function recovery time, contrasting with the L-TME. The large, multicenter, prospective studies were needed to validate the advantages of robotic surgery system used in rectal cancer.

Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Phase II Open Label Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The phase II randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted surgery with those of laparoscopic surgery in the patients with rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

The feasibility of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has not been established yet.

METHODS

Between February 21, 2012 and March 11, 2015, patients with rectal cancer (cT1-3NxM0) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery, and stratified per sex and administration of preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The primary outcome was the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimen. Secondary outcomes were the circumferential and distal resection margins, the number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity, bowel function recovery, and quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 163 patients were randomly assigned to the robot-assisted (n = 81) and laparoscopic (n = 82) surgery groups, and 139 patients were eligible for the analyses (73 vs 66, respectively). One patient (1.2%) in the robot-assisted group was converted to open surgery. The TME quality did not differ between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups (80.3% vs 78.1% complete TME, respectively; 18.2% vs 21.9% nearly complete TME, respectively; P = 0.599). The resection margins, number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity, and bowel function recovery also were not significantly different. On analyzing quality of life, scores of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ C30) and EORTC QLQ CR38 were similar in the 2 groups, but in the EORTC QLQ CR 38 questionnaire, sexual function 12 months postoperatively was better in the robot-assisted group than in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer showed TME quality comparable with that of laparoscopic surgery, and it demonstrated similar postoperative morbidity, bowel function recovery, and quality of life.

Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Few studies have compared robotic and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) in rectal cancer. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of recently published studies to compare perioperative outcomes of ISR for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic ISR in patients with low rectal cancer. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Perioperative outcomes of interest included the rate of diverting stoma, open conversion rate, operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, and time to initiate the postoperative diet. Oncological outcomes included the number of retrieved lymph nodes, distal resection margin, proximal resection margin, circumferential resection margin, 3-year overall survival, 3-year disease-free survival, and local recurrence. Postoperative complications included overall complications, a Dindo-Clavien classification ≥ III, and anastomotic leakage. All outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

We included 5 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 510 patients undergoing 273 (53.5%) robotic ISR procedures and 237 (46.5%) laparoscopic ISR procedures. The robotic ISR group lower conversion rate, lower blood loss, and longer operation times than the laparoscopic group. We also noted that fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the robotic ISR group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Other outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic and laparoscopic ISR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and 3-year oncologic outcomes; however, robotic ISR was associated with a lower conversion rate and less blood loss despite longer operation times compared to laparoscopic ISR. These findings suggest that robotic ISR maybe a safe and effective technique for treating low rectal cancer in selected patients. The potential oncologic and functional benefits of robotic ISR should be evaluated in larger randomized controlled trials.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach-report of a single-center experience

AIM

Robotic surgery allows for a better visualization and more precise dissection especially in the narrow male pelvis and mid and lower third of the rectum. However, superiority to laparoscopic TME has yet to be proven. We therefore analyzed short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, 44 robotic (RTME) and 41 laparoscopic (LTME) low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision were performed at a single institution. Specimen quality was assessed and reported by an independent pathologist following international guidelines.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly regarding gender, age, ASA stage, BMI, and distance of the lower tumor margin from the anal verge. More patients in the RTME group underwent preoperative chemoradiation (43.2 vs. 19.5%, p = 0.019). The quality of the TME specimen was significantly better in the RTME group (complete/nearly complete/incomplete for RTME 97/0/3% and for LTME 78/17/5%, p = 0.03). The conversion rate tended to be lower in the RTME group (7 vs. 17%, p = 0.143). There was no difference in CRM positivity between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is safe and can improve the quality of TME for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopy. Any effect on long-term survival remains to be established.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis

Background

Urogenital dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery can largely affect patients’ postoperative quality of life. Whether robotic surgery can be a better option when comparing with laparoscopic surgery is still not well-known.

Methods

Comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials was conducted to identify relevant studies in March 2018. Studies comparing robotic surgery with laparoscopic surgery were included. Measurement of urogenital function was through the International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function.

Results

Six studies with 386 patients in robotic group and 421 patients in laparoscopic group were finally included. Pooled analysis indicated that bladder function was better at 12 months in the robotic group after the procedures (mean difference, − 0.30, 95% CI, − 0.52 to − 0.08). No significant difference was found at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (mean difference, − 0.37, 95% CI, − 1.48 to 0.73; mean difference, − 1.21, 95% CI, − 2.69 to 0.28). Sexual function was better at 3 months in the robotic group after surgery (mean difference, − 3.28, 95% CI, − 6.08 to − 0.49) and not significantly different at 6 and 12 months. (mean difference, 3.78, 95% CI, − 7.37 to 14.93; mean difference, − 2.82, 95% CI, − 8.43 to 2.80).

Conclusion

Robotic surgery may offer faster recovery in urogenital function compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Sexual and urinary outcomes in robotic rectal surgery: review of the literature and technical considerations

Several studies have reported high rates of urogenital dysfunction after open and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic surgery has several features that could facilitate identification and preservation of autonomic nerves. This manuscript aims to summarize the literature regarding urogenital function after robotic rectal cancer surgery and focus on technical aspects of nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision. Comprehensive searches were conducted through online databases. Selection criteria included: original articles assessing urinary and sexual function after robotic surgery of males and/or females with standardized questionnaires. A total of 16 articles were included in the review. Seven of the nine cohort studies evaluating male sexual function showed earlier recovery or better outcomes in patients operated with robotic techniques. Two studies did not find any statistically significant difference. Three out of four case series found no difference in sexual function scores measured preoperatively and after 1 year. Female sexual function was assessed in seven studies: two case series show no deterioration of at 1 year. Three comparative studies showed no difference between robotic and laparoscopic groups. Two randomized control trials showed different results in terms of male and female sexual functions with better preservation at 1 year in the robotic group in one and no difference in another. Urinary functions assessed in males and/or females in the 16 studies showed no statistically significant differences at long-term follow-up. At present, there is no evidence of superiority of robotic surgery for performing nerve-sparing rectal cancer surgery.

The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery using a propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to clarify the short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer in a retrospective study.

METHODS

The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery (n = 130) were retrospectively compared to open (n = 234) and laparoscopic surgery (n = 318) by a propensity score analysis.

RESULTS

Robotic surgery was performed more frequently for patients with lower rectal cancer (55%) than open (30%, p < 0.0001) or laparoscopic surgery (36%, p < 0.0001). None of the robotic surgery cases were converted to open surgery. After propensity score matching, robotic surgery was found to be associated with a longer operation time (342 vs. 230 min, p < 0.0001) and less blood loss (7 vs. 420 mL, p < 0.0001) than open surgery. The overall complication rate of robotic surgery was lower than that of open surgery (13 vs. 28%, p = 0.032). Robotic surgery was associated with a lower incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) than laparoscopic surgery (0 vs. 7%, p = 0.028). There were no cases of anastomotic leakage after robotic surgery. The circumferential resection margin was involved in 0.8% of the patients who underwent robotic surgery; the incidence did not differ among the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although robotic surgery for rectal cancer was associated with a longer operation time, it was associated with a very low incidence of SSIs. The degree of safety was comparable to both open and laparoscopic surgery.