Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for middle or lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

The potential benefits of robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer (RC) remain uncertain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of RS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) for stage I-III middle or lower RC.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed 350 consecutive patients with stage I-III middle or lower RC who underwent curative surgery from 2017 to 2021, employing propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

RESULTS

Of 350 patients, 128 patients underwent RS. After PSM, we enrolled 256 patients. Median follow-up was 59.8 months. Before PSM, significant differences were observed between groups regarding primary tumor site (p = 0.02). After PSM, no significant differences between groups were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, intra-operative and postoperative complications, or number of lymph nodes harvested. After PSM, 3- and 5-year cumulative LR rates were 3.2% and 3.2% in the RS group, and 2.8% and 3.2% in the LS group, respectively. The cumulative distant recurrence (DR) rates in the RS group were 13.4% at 3-year and 15.1% at 5-year, whereas in the LS group, they were 14.9% and 18.7%, respectively. No notable differences in cumulative LR or DR rates were evident between groups. Furthermore, no notable differences were observed between groups regarding overall, cancer-specific, or recurrence-free survival according to stage.

CONCLUSIONS

RS appears to be viable and safe treatment approach for patients with middle or lower RC, offering short- and long-term outcomes comparable to those of LS.

The KRAS G12D mutation increases the risk of unresectable recurrence of resectable colorectal liver-only metastasis

PURPOSE

Unresectable recurrence is a critical predictor of outcomes for colorectal cancer patients. We attempted to identify the prognostic factors, especially for unresectable recurrence-free survival (URFS) as a new endpoint, in patients with resectable colorectal liver-only metastasis (CRLOM).

METHODS

We investigated patients with resectable CRLOM, who underwent an R0 resection for both CRC and CRLOM between January, 2014 and March, 2019 at a single institution. The exclusion criteria were patients who received neoadjuvant treatment, the absence of data for genetic analyses, and the presence of multiple cancers, synchronous CRC, or familial adenomatous polyposis. The prognostic factors were examined retrospectively using data on pre-hepatectomy factors, including primary tumor molecular profiling results.

RESULTS

We analyzed the data of 101 patients who underwent curative-intent surgery for CRLOM. Multivariate analysis revealed that KRAS G12D mutation-positivity (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.69; p < 0.01), RYR2 mutation-positivity (HR: 4.03; p < 0.01), and KRAS G12S mutation-positivity (HR: 3.96; p = 0.03), CA19-9 > 37 U/ml before hepatectomy (HR: 3.62; p < 0.01), and primary tumor pN2 stage (HR: 3.22; p = 0.03) were significant predictors of the URFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to show that specific KRAS and RYR2 mutations were associated with the URFS.

Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: single-center, retrospective, propensity score analyses

Although the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer are well known, the long-term oncologic outcomes of RALS compared with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) are not clear. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of RALS and CLS for rectal cancer using propensity score matching. This retrospective study included 185 patients with stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent radical surgery at our institute between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score analyses were performed with 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) as the primary endpoints. After case matching, the 3-year OS and 3-year RFS rates were 86.5% and 77.9% in the CLS group and 98.4% and 88.5% in the RALS group, respectively. Although there were no significant differences in OS (p = 0.195) or RFS (p = 0.518) between the groups, the RALS group had slightly better OS and RFS rates. 3-year cumulative (Cum) local recurrence (LR) and 3-year Cum distant metastasis (DM) were 9.7% and 8.7% in the CLS group and 4.5% and 10.8% in the RALS group, respectively. There were no significant differences in Cum-LR (p = 0.225) or Cum-DM (p = 0.318) between the groups. RALS is a reasonable surgical treatment option for patients with rectal cancer, with long-term outcomes similar to those of CLS in such patients.

Streamlining robotic-assisted abdominoperineal resection

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery has proven to be a safe and feasible approach for the management of rectal cancer, including abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, it often incurs longer operative times and higher costs. This study aimed to overcome these limitations by adopting a synchronous approach utilizing an optimized team composition.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent robot-assisted APR at our facility between June 2022 and June 2023 were analyzed. The key points of the optimized approach included the following: At the start of the surgery, the surgeon performed an anococcygeal ligament resection from the perineal side while the bedside assistants set up the ports. Then, through console manipulation, the presacral fascia, elevated by previously placed gauze, was easily and safely incised, providing access to the perineal region.

RESULTS

A total of nine patients were included in this study. The median operation time was 231 min, and the intraoperative blood loss was 170 ml. The operation time was reduced to 167.5 min, and the blood loss was 80.5 ml in cases without a trainee. Surgical site infections, classified as Clavien-Dindo grade II complications, were observed in two cases, but no obvious urinary or erectile dysfunction was observed.

CONCLUSION

The study results indicate that the challenges associated with APR can be efficiently addressed without requiring additional personnel by streamlining team composition and the synchronous approach. This optimization strategy minimizes the need for a larger surgical team, while maximizing the utilization of surgical time and resources.

Robotic-assisted colectomy for right-sided colon cancer: Short-term surgical outcomes of a multi-institutional prospective cohort study in Japan

Background

In Japan, there are no substantial reports on robotic-assisted colectomy because few institutions performed the procedure, as it was not covered by national insurance until March 2022.

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted colectomy for patients with curatively resectable colon cancer in Japan.

Methods

This multi-institutional, prospective, single-arm, observational study enrolled patients diagnosed with curatively resectable clinical stage I-IIIC colon adenocarcinoma with D2 or D3 lymph node dissection and treated with robotic-assisted colectomy. The primary endpoint was the conversion rate to laparotomy. The non-inferiority of outcomes for robotic-assisted colectomy versus laparoscopic colectomy, which was determined from historical data, was verified.

Results

One hundred patients were registered between July 2019 and March 2022 and underwent robotic-assisted colectomy performed by seven expert surgeons at six institutions. Thirteen patients were excluded because their surgeons had insufficient experience performing robotic-assisted colectomy; therefore, 87 patients were eligible for the primary endpoint analysis. There was no conversion in these 87 patients, and robotic-assisted colectomy was non-inferior to laparoscopic colectomy in terms of conversion rate (90% confidence interval 0-3.38, p = 0.0006). No intraoperative adverse events occurred, and no mortality was observed in a total of 100 patients. The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo complications grade III or higher was 4%.

Conclusion

This study showed the non-inferiority of the conversion rates between robotic-assisted colectomy and laparoscopic colectomy. Favorable perioperative outcomes also suggest the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted colectomy.

Evaluation of an established colorectal robotic programme at an NHS district general hospital: audit of outcomes and systematic review of published data

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers potential advantages over traditional surgical approaches. This study aimed to assess outcomes from a district general hospital (DGH) robotic colorectal programme against published data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The robotic programme was established following simulator, dry/wet lab training, and proctoring. We performed a case series analysing technical, patient, and oncological outcomes extracted from a prospective database of colorectal RAS cases (2015-2022). A registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022300773; PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE) of single-centre colorectal series from established robotic centres (n>200 cases) was completed and compared to local data using descriptive summary statistics. Risk of bias assessment was performed using an adapted version of the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-two RAS cases were performed including 122 anterior resections, 56 APERs, 19 rectopexies, and 15 Hartmann's procedures. The median duration was 325 (IQR 265-400) min. Blood loss was < 100 ml in 97% of cases with 2 (0.9%) cases converted to open. Complications (Clavien-Dindo 3-5) occurred in 19 (8%) patients, with 3 (1.3%) deaths in < 30 days. Length of stay was 7 (IQR 5-11) days. In 169 rectal cancer cases, there were 9 (5.3%) cases with a positive circumferential or distal margin and lymph node yield of 17 (IQR 13-24). A systematic review of 1648 abstracts identified 13 studies from established robotic centres, totaling 4930 cases, with technical, patient, and oncological outcomes comparable to our own case series.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes from our robotic colorectal programme at a UK DGH are comparable with the largest published case series from world-renowned centres. Training and proctoring together with rolling audit must accompany the expansion of robotic surgery to safeguard outcomes.

Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, while in some respects equivalent or even preferable to open surgery, is challenged in specific conditions where the tumor is located in the middle and lower third of the rectum. Robotic surgery equipped with a superior arm of machinery and gained better visualization can compensate for the deficiency of the laparoscopic approach. This study adopted a propensity matched analysis to compare the functional and oncological short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. All patients who underwent proctectomy have been collected prospectively between December 2019 and November 2022. After censoring for inclusion criteria, we performed a propensity matching analysis. A detailed collection of post-operative examination indicators was performed, while the K-M survival curves were plotted to analyze post-operative oncology outcomes. The LARS scale was designed to evaluate the anal function of patients in the form of questionnaires. Totally, 215 patients underwent robotic operations while 1011 patients selected laparoscopic operations. Patients matched 1∶1 by propensity score were divided into the robotic and laparoscopic groups, 210 cases were included in each group. All patients underwent a follow-up for a median period of 18.3 months. Robotic surgery was connected with an enhanced recovery including the earlier time to first flatus passage without ileostomy (P = 0.050), the earlier time to liquid diet without ileostomy (P = 0.040), lower incidence of urinary retention (P = 0.043), better anal function 1 month after LAR without ileostomy (P < 0.001), longer operative time (\P = 0.042), compared with laparoscopic operations. The oncological outcomes and occurrence of other complications were comparable between the two approaches. For mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery could be recognized as an effective technique with identical short-term outcomes of oncology and better anal function in comparison to laparoscopic surgery. However, multi-center studies with larger samples are expected to validate the long-term outcomes of robotic surgery.

Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Techniques

Colorectal surgery has witnessed a transformative shift with the advent of minimally invasive techniques, offering patients reduced postoperative discomfort, shorter hospital stays, and accelerated recovery compared to conventional open surgery. This comprehensive review aims to assess the current state of minimally invasive approaches in colorectal surgery, encompassing various techniques such as single-incision laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery, and conventional laparoscopic surgery. The article meticulously explores the benefits and drawbacks of each technique, delves into the established criteria for their application, delineates cautious circumstances, and analyzes the outcomes of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Additionally, the integration of virtual reality and augmented reality for surgical planning and training is discussed, shedding light on the future trajectory of this field. Surgeons and researchers striving to enhance patient care and surgical outcomes in colorectal surgery will find this review article an invaluable resource, presenting crucial components of minimally invasive colorectal surgery and paving the way for continued advancements in the field.

Feasibility of two laparoscopic surgeries for colon cancer performed by the same surgeon on a single day

BACKGROUND

Although the proportion of laparoscopic colectomies (LCs) for colon cancer is increasing, the feasibility of the same surgeon performing two LCs on a single day remains unknown. This study was conducted to clarify the feasibility of this practice by evaluating short-term and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis enrolled patients with pathological stage I-III colon cancer who underwent LC at the Shizuoka Cancer Center between 2010 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on the timing of the surgery for the surgeon. The first group (n = 1485) comprised patients who underwent LC as the first surgery of the day for the surgeon. The second group (n = 163) comprised patients who underwent LC as the second LC of the day for the surgeon. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the baseline characteristics of the first and second groups. The short-term and long-term outcomes of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher between the first (10.4%, 17/163) and second groups (5.5%, 9/163). There were no significant differences in other perioperative outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and incidence of conversion to open surgery, between the two groups. Regarding long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences in overall survival or relapse-free survival between the two groups both in the full cohort and in the propensity score-matched cohort. In the propensity score-matched cohort, 5-year overall survival was 92.7% in the first group and 94.4% in the second group; 5-year relapse-free survival was 87.1% and 90.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the same surgeon performing two LCs for colon cancer on a single day is feasible in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes.

Current Status of Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery

Development of surgical support robots began in the 1980s as a navigation and auxiliary device for endoscopic surgery. For remote surgery on the battlefield, a master-slave-type surgical support robot was developed, in which a console surgeon operates the robot at will. The da Vinci surgical system, which currently dominates the global robotic surgery market, received United States Food and Drug Administration and regulatory approval in Japan in 2000 and 2009 respectively. The latest, fourth generation, da Vinci Xi has a good field of view via a three-dimensional monitor, highly operable forceps, a motion scale function, and a tremor-filtered articulated function. Gastroenterological tract robotic surgery is safe and minimally invasive when accessing and operating on the esophagus, stomach, colon, and rectum. The learning curve is said to be short, and robotic surgery will likely be standardized soon. Therefore, robotic surgery training should be systematized for young surgeons so that it can be further standardized and later adapted to a wider range of surgeries. This article reviews current trends and potential developments in robotic surgery.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Whether rectal cancer surgery by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery provides beneficial advantages remains controversial. Although favorable outcomes in terms of the safety and technical feasibility of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery have been demonstrated for rectal cancer, long-term oncological outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery have only been examined in a few studies. This retrospective study of subjects who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery evaluated short- and long-term outcomes of consecutive rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Between November 2016 and January 2020, we analyzed the records of 62 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma without distant metastasis to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Tumors were located in the lower or mid-rectum (88.7%) in most patients. The median operative time was 357 min. No patient received transfusions, and the median blood loss was 10.5 ml. Open laparotomy was not required in any patient. A Clavien-Dindo classification of all grades was observed in 12 patients (19.4%). Positive radial margin was not observed in any patient. Duration of median follow-up was 40.5 mo, while 3-y overall survival and 3-y relapse-free survival rates were 96.8% and 85.0%, respectively. The local recurrence rate was 3.4%.

CONCLUSION

Favorable short- and long-term outcomes demonstrated robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was safe and technically feasible for rectal cancer.

Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer

Aim

Sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer include low anterior and intersphincteric resection. In low anterior resection, the distal rectum is divided by a transabdominal approach, which is technically demanding. In intersphincteric resection, a perineal approach is used. We aimed to evaluate whether robotic-assisted surgery is technically superior to laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer. We compared the frequency of low anterior resection in cases of sphincter-preserving operations.

Method

We investigated 183 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving robotic-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer (lower border within 5 cm of the anal verge) between April 2010 and March 2020. The frequency of low anterior resection was compared between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries. The clinicopathological factors associated with an increase in performing low anterior resection were analyzed by multivariate analyses.

Results

Overall, 41 (22.4%) and 142 (77.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. Low anterior resection was done significantly more frequently in robotic-assisted surgery (67.6%) than in laparoscopic surgery (48.8%) (P = 0.04). Multivariate analyses showed that tumor distance from the anal verge (P < 0.01) and robotic-assisted surgery (P = 0.02) were significantly associated with an increase in the performance of low anterior resection. The rate of postoperative complications or pathological results was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery significantly increased the frequency of low anterior resection in sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer. Robotic-assisted surgery has technical superiority over laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer treatment.

Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Rectal Cancer: Real-World Experience over 8 Years of Multiple Institutions with High-Volume Robotic-Assisted Surgery

The perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RRS) are unclear. This retrospective observational study enrolled patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing RRS from three high-volume institutions in Taiwan. Of the 605 enrolled patients, 301 (49.75%), 176 (29.09%), and 116 (19.17%) had lower, middle, and upper rectal cancers, respectively. Low anterior resection (377, 62.31%) was the most frequent surgical procedure. Intraoperative blood transfusion was performed in 10 patients (2%). The surgery was converted to an open one for one patient (0.2%), and ten (1.7%) patients underwent reoperation. The overall complication rate was 14.5%, including 3% from anastomosis leakage. No deaths occurred during surgery and within 30 days postoperatively. The positive rates of distal resection margin and circumferential resection margin were observed in 21 (3.5%) and 30 (5.0%) patients, respectively. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates for patients with stage I-III rectal cancer were 91.1% and 86.3%, respectively. This is the first multi-institutional study in Taiwan with 605 patients from three high-volume hospitals. The overall surgical and oncological outcomes were equivalent or superior to those estimated in other studies. Hence, RRS is an effective and safe technique for rectal resection in high-volume hospitals.

Comprehensive genetic characterization of rectal cancer in a large cohort of Japanese patients: differences according to tumor location

BACKGROUND

In clinical practice, rectal cancer (RC) is classified according to tumor location. However, RC's genetic characteristics according to tumor location remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare RC's genetic characteristics according to tumor location.

METHODS

In 611 patients with surgically resected RC, we performed genetic analyses and compared the results between low and other RCs. Low RC was defined according to the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines and Japanese Classification of Colorectal, Appendiceal, and Anal Carcinoma (JCCRC).

RESULTS

KRAS mutation accumulation was significantly higher in low RC under the ESMO classification. Gene expression levels significantly differed between the groups for CTNNB1, KRAS, and ERBB2, under the ESMO classification and for TP53, KRAS, and ERBB2 under the JCCRC. Under the JCCRC, low RC had a significantly higher prevalence of fusion genes, such as EIF3E-RSPO2, PTPRK-RSPO3, and VTI1A-TCF7L2. Consensus molecular subtype (CMS) distribution was significantly different between the groups under both classifications. In particular, low RC had lower and higher frequencies of CMS2 and CMS4, respectively. CMS2 and CMS4 frequencies in low RC were 14.8% and 41.5% under the ESMO classification and 14.5% and 41.6% under the JCCRC, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that pT3-4, pN1-2, and CMS4 were associated with poor relapse-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Low RC exhibited distinct genetic characteristics from other RCs. In particular, CMS4 was more frequent in low RC and was a risk factor for poor prognosis. These findings potentially avail further information regarding tumor biology and could lead to improvements in RC treatment.

Robotic-assisted Surgery: Expanding Indication to Colon Cancer in Japan

In recent years, robotic-assisted surgery has demonstrated remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for colorectal cancer. While there have been fewer studies investigating robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of colon cancer than rectal cancer, evidence regarding robotic-assisted colectomy has been accumulating due to increasing use of the procedure. Robotic-assisted colectomy generally requires a long operative time and involves high costs. However, as evidence is increasingly supportive of its higher accuracy and less invasive nature compared to laparoscopic colectomy, the procedure is anticipated to improve the ratio of conversion to laparotomy and accelerate postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has also been suggested for a specific level of effectiveness in manipulative procedures, such as intracorporeal anastomosis, and is increasingly indicated as a less problematic procedure compared to conventional laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of long-term oncological outcomes. Although robotic-assisted colectomy has been widely adopted abroad, only a limited number of institutions have been using this procedure in Japan. Further accumulation of experience and studies investigating surgical outcomes using this approach are required in Japan.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for borderline resectable low rectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes at a single Japanese center

PURPOSE

Rectal cancers pose a threat to the mesorectal fascia or invade neighboring structures or organs. Some tumors are potentially resectable but are likely to be positive at the resection margin for cancer involvement and are thus recognized as "borderline resectable (BR)" tumors. This study aimed to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for BR low rectal cancer at a single Japanese center.

METHODS

Data of 55 patients, who received nCRT followed by BR low rectal cancer surgery between April 2010 and December 2019, were evaluated for the short-term outcomes. The oncological outcomes of 42 patients who underwent surgery between April 2010 and December 2018 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-six (65.5%) patients had cT4 tumors, and 53 (96.4%) patients had a clinical-stage III or IV. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 42 (76.4%) patients. The incidence of severe post-operative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) was 18.2%. Fifty-two (94.5%) patients had a pathological negative resection margin. The 3-year overall survival rate, disease-free survival rate, and cumulative incidence of local recurrence were 100%, 70.3%, and 5.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The short- and long-term outcomes of nCRT for BR low rectal cancer were acceptable. In particular, reasonable local control was achieved.

Current status and future perspectives of robotic inguinal hernia repair

With more than 5500 da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS) installed worldwide, the robotic approach for general surgery, including for inguinal hernia repair, is gaining popularity in the USA. However, in many countries outside the USA, robotic surgery is performed at only a few advanced institutions; therefore, its advantages over the open or laparoscopic approaches for inguinal hernia repair are unclear. Several retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of robotic inguinal hernia repair, but there is still no firm evidence to support the superiority of robotic surgery for this procedure or its long-term clinical outcomes. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery through appropriate utilization of technological advantages, such as wristed instruments, tremor filtering, and high-resolution 3D images. The potential benefits of robotic inguinal hernia repair are lower rates of complications or recurrence than open and laparoscopic surgery, with less postoperative pain, and a rapid learning curve for surgeons. In this review, we summarize the current status and future prospects of robotic inguinal hernia repair and discuss the issues associated with this procedure.

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Advantages of robotic abdominoperineal resection compared with laparoscopic surgery: a single-center retrospective study

PURPOSE

Although robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery, studies focusing on abdominoperineal resection are limited. The aim of this study was to compare the operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted from April 2010 to March 2020. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent robotic or laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection without lateral lymph node dissection were enrolled. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

We evaluated 33 and 20 patients in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The median operative time and blood loss were comparable between the two groups. No significant differences in the overall complication rates were noted, whereas the rates of urinary dysfunction (3% vs. 26%, p = 0.02) and perineal wound infection (9% vs. 35%, p = 0.03) in the robotic group were significantly lower in comparison to the laparoscopic group. The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robotic group (8 days vs. 11 days, p < 0.01). The positive resection margin rates were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic abdominoperineal resection demonstrated better short-term outcomes than laparoscopic surgery, suggesting that it could be a useful approach.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

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

State of the art in robotic rectal surgery: marginal gains worth the pain?

After their first introduction in the 1990s to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, especially in confined spaces such as the pelvis, telemanipulators (i.e., master-slave manipulators) have gained popularity and acceptance among gastrointestinal surgeons. These complex, interventional surgical devices use multiple technologies, such as 3-D advanced imaging, tremor reduction and 7-degree movement. Superior instrument dexterity, stable precise vision and accessibility to narrow confined spaces make these devices well suited for colorectal surgery. The drive for innovations in the field of surgical robotics will leverage novel robots driven by data, image integration, and artificial intelligence. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be learned from the current literature and clinical trials. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established; increasing evidence suggests that when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery, robotic approaches might offer superior peri-operative outcomes. Notably, the marginal gains achieved with the use of robotics in rectal cancer surgery are linked with structured training and standardization of operative techniques. With decreasing costs and wider availability of new systems, it is foreseeable that robotic surgical systems will be an integral part of colorectal practice.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

In recent years, minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer has seen remarkable improvement. For the laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer, earlier postoperative recovery and reduced hospital stays can be expected compared to those for open surgery. Also, no increase in perioperative morbidity and mortality has been shown. Furthermore, long-term oncological outcomes comparable to open surgery have been obtained. Although laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has shown good short-term postoperative outcomes, recent randomized controlled trials could not demonstrate non-inferiority to open surgery with respect to oncological safety. Further studies are required to confirm the impact of robotic surgery on colon and rectal cancer and the appropriate indications for transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Robotic rectal surgery: Outcomes of the first 102 totally robotic cases handled using the single-docking technique in a reference institution

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Rectal cancer is often surgically treated, but it is still associated with morbidity rates. Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly being used to reduce complications, and the use of such techniques can be found in the literature. This study aims to report our experience in a reference oncology center.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on a prospective database of patients who underwent robotic surgery for rectal cancer using the single-docking technique from September 2014 to April 2018. Clinical and surgical variables, as well as morbidity and mortality rates, were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and two patients underwent robotic surgery. Intraoperative complications occurred in six patients (4.9%), and postoperative complications in 24 patients (23.5%), of which anastomotic fistula represented 3.9%. The conversion rate was 1.96%. Two cases (1.9%) faced death within 30 days. The median length of hospitalization was 3 days. The median number of lymph nodes dissected was 15. Clinical and surgical data were correlated with postoperative complications, and no statistically significant differences were found.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is a safe and feasible approach to manage rectal cancer. The method presents satisfactory results with regard to the rate of operative complications, conversion rate, oncologic outcomes, and length of hospitalization.

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.