Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Preoperative CT-derived sarcopenia as a predictor of postoperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for non-metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

Sarcopenia is increasingly recognized as a risk factor for postoperative complications in gastrointestinal cancer surgery. This study aimed to assess the association between sarcopenia and postoperative complications following laparoscopic radical resection of non-metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 387 non-metastatic CRC patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection were categorized into a sarcopenic group and a non-sarcopenic group based on preoperative skeletal muscle index (SMI, cm2/m2). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors for postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Sarcopenia was present in 156 (40.31%) patients. The incidence of postoperative complications was 32.3%, with a serious complication (Clavien-Dindo III-V) rate of 12.1%. Compared with non-sarcopenic patients, sarcopenic patients had significantly higher incidences of total complications (P < 0.001) and severe complications (P = 0.026). Multivariable analysis identified sarcopenia as an independent risk factor for total postoperative complications (OR = 3.42, 95%CI 1.85-6.31). Further analysis of specific types of postoperative complications revealed that anastomotic leakage (P = 0.001), surgical site infection (P = 0.002), and surgical site adverse events (P = 0.001) rates were higher in sarcopenic patients. In multivariable analysis, sarcopenia was independently associated with anastomotic leakage (OR = 3.36, 95%CI = 1.12-10.12) and surgical site adverse events (OR = 3.02, 95%CI = 1.55-5.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative CT-derived sarcopenia can predict postoperative complications in patients with non-metastatic CRC undergoing laparoscopic radical resection, particularly anastomotic leakage and surgical site adverse events.

Learning Curve on Lymph Nodes Retrieval and Postoperative Length of Hospital Stay in Robotic Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective, Observational Study

Background and Aims

Robotic rectal cancer surgery has been introduced to reduce the difficulty and complications of the procedure. This study aims to assess the learning curve for robotic rectal cancer of individual surgeons with extensive laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery through multidimensional analyses.

Methods

Data were retrospectively collected on 156 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer surgery by a single surgeon between January 2018 and December 2023.

Results

The operative time required for LAR can be divided into three distinct phases: an early or learning phase (1-24 cases), an intermediate or proficient phase (25-55 cases), and a late or mastery phase (56-72 cases). The study found that the learning curve for LAR and protective operative time can be divided into three distinct phases: an early or learning phase (1 to 15 cases), an intermediate or proficient phase (16 to 40 cases), and a late or mastery stage (41 to 63 cases). Following the completion of 46 cases of surgery, the next stage of the learning curve for lymph nodes retrieval has been reached. The discrepancy between the mean number of lymph nodes retrieved in each of the three stages was marginal, with an difference of 0.5 between the lowest and highest values observed (14.1 vs. 13.6 vs. 13.7). The length of hospital stay for patients decreases as the surgeon gains more experience, reaching a mean of 10.3 days in 2023.

Conclusion

This study shows that robotic surgery for rectal cancer has a significant learning curve with multiple stages. Robotic surgery can remove more lymph nodes than recommended by guidelines even during the learning phase (recommend that at least 12 lymph nodes should be retrieved). As the learning curve progresses to the mastery phase, the length of postoperative hospital stays gradually decreases to a lower level.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The surgical treatment of mid-low rectal cancer poses greater technical challenges, and whether robotic surgery provides superior safety and efficacy compared to laparoscopic surgery remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer, published up to November 30, 2024. A total of four RCTs were finally included, comprising 1952 patients with mid-low rectal cancer. For patients with mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery was associated with longer operative time, a lower rate of conversion to open surgery, a higher lymph node yield, a lower rate of positive circumferential resection margin, and a lower rate of reoperation within 30 days postoperatively compared with laparoscopic surgery. However, there were no significant differences between the two surgical approaches in the estimated blood loss, the postoperative hospital stay, the rates of overall and severe postoperative complications, the time to first autonomous urination and to first flatus, and the rate of readmission within 30 days postoperatively between the two surgical approaches. Robotic surgery demonstrated certain advantages in reducing conversion rates and improving pathological outcomes for mid-low rectal cancer, but its clinical superiority remains limited, with no significant differences observed in multiple critical clinical outcomes compared with laparoscopic surgery, along with prolonged operative time. These findings indicate that, for mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery is a technically more refined option but does not confer absolute advantages over laparoscopic surgery.

Combined TaTME with SP Robot for Low Anterior Resection in Rectal Cancer: rSPa TaTME

Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the gold standard for the resection of rectal cancer regardless of the modality: open, laparoscopic, or robotic. The transanal TME (TaTME) approach has been utilized to overcome the difficulties encountered with the dissection of tumors in the distal pelvis. Recently, a single-port robotic approach (rSPa) was introduced, where three arms and a camera emanate from a 2.5 cm diameter port. This report presents the first experience in the United States combining those two approaches (rSPa TaTME) in rectal cancer, evaluating its safety and oncologic outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective review of our prospectively maintained rectal cancer database. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, neoadjuvant treatment, and oncologic and surgical outcomes were recorded. Results: Between May 2022 and August 2024, ten patients (six females, four males) with a median age at surgery of 53 years (range: 38-85) and a mean BMI of 26 (±5) kg/m2 were included for analysis. The median distance of tumors from the anorectal junction was 3.2 cm (range: 2-5.3 cm). All patients had negative margins, with eight complete TME specimens, one near complete, and one incomplete. The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 24 (±11). The average operative time was 351 (243-411) min. The average length of stay was four days. The ileostomy was reversed in nine out of ten patients. Six patients experienced complications within 30 days of surgery. There were no local or distal recurrences, with a mean follow-up of 20 months (range: 4-30). Conclusions: rSPa TaTME is a unique and innovative method of combining two minimally advanced approaches for the resection of distal rectal cancers, with acceptable surgical and oncologic outcomes.

An initial exploratory clinical study and outcome assessment of gastrointestinal surgeries using advanced robotic-assisted techniques

BACKGROUND

In addition to the Da Vinci surgical robot, domestic surgical robots are being developed rapidly. Chinese Toumai® laparoscopic surgical robot was approved for urological surgery in 2022.This study aims to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Toumai® robotic surgical system in performing complex gastrointestinal surgeries.

METHODS

This prospective, single-center, single-arm exploratory study was conducted at Gansu Provincial Hospital between June 2022 and October 2023, enrolling 12 patients undergoing gastrectomy and 9 patients undergoing colorectal resection. The primary endpoints are oncological outcomes and surgical success rates, while secondary endpoints encompassed intraoperative blood loss, operative duration, complication rates, system performance metrics, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain levels.

RESULTS

All patients successfully underwent robotic-assisted surgery with adequate oncological resection and favorable postoperative outcomes. There were no conversions to open or laparoscopic surgery, resulting in a 100% procedural success rate. The median docking time for radical gastrectomy was 17.50 (14.25, 21.50) minutes, with a median master-slave control time of 121.50 (105.50, 172.00) minutes, median intraoperative blood loss of 100.00 (50.00, 275.00) mL, and a median postoperative hospital stay of 9.00 (7.25, 10.75) days. For radical colorectal surgery, the median docking time was 22 (17.50, 30.50) minutes, the median master-slave control time was 68 (56.50, 119.00) minutes, with a median blood loss of 50 (50.00, 150.00) mL, and a median postoperative hospital stay of 7 (7.00, 10.00) days. No intraoperative organ injury, mortality, system failure, or severe postoperative complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary findings provide compelling evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of the Toumai® laparoscopic surgical robotic system in performing gastric and colorectal surgeries.

Comparison of efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To some extent, the robotic technique does offer certain benefits in rectal cancer surgery than laparoscopic one, while remains a topic of ongoing debate for rectal cancer patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT).

METHODS

Potential studies published until January 2024 were obtained from Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed. Dichotomous and continuous variables were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs, respectively. A random effects model was used if the I2 statistic >50%; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 1079 patients were analysed. The robotic-assisted group had an 0.4 cm shorter distance from the anal verge (95% CI: -0.680 to -0.114, P =0.006) and 1.94 times higher complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rate (OR=1.936, 95% CI: 1.061-3.532, P =0.031). However, the operation time in the robotic-assisted group was 54 min longer (95% CI: 20.489-87.037, P =0.002) than the laparoscopic group. In addition, the robotic-assisted group had a lower open conversion rate (OR=0.324, 95% CI: 0.129-0.816, P =0.017) and a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD=-1.127, 95% CI: -2.071 to -0.184, P =0.019).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery offered several advantages over laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer following NCRT in terms of resection of lower tumours with improved TME completeness, lower open conversion rate, and shorter hospital stay, despite the longer operative time.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted comparative laparoscopic surgery in lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

A meta-analysis was conducted on the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer. There are few articles and reports on this topic, and a lack of high-quality research results in unreliable research conclusions. This study includes prospective and retrospective studies to obtain more reliable findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases were searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The search was conducted from the time of database construction to March 2024. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the NOS scoring system. Meta-analysis was performed using R language software. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Six relevant literatures that met the criteria were finally included, and 652 patients were included, including 316 (48.5%) in the robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (RLLND) and 336 (51.5%) in the laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (LLLND). Analysis of the results showed that compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less mean intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 22, 95% CI - 40.03 to - 3.97, P < 0.05), longer operative time (MD = 51.57, 95%CI 7.69 to 95.45, P < 0.05), and a shorter mean hospital stay (MD = - 1.25, 95%CI - 2.46 to - 0.05, P < 0.05), a low rate of urinary complications (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.64, P < 0.01), a low overall rate of postoperative complications (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.87, P < 0.01), and a high number of lateral lymph node dissection (MD = 1.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.23, P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative anastomotic leakage, postoperative intestinal obstruction, and total number of lymph nodes obtained (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laparoscopy, robotic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, shortens the average length of hospital stay, reduces urologic complications, decreases overall postoperative complications, and collects more lateral lymph nodes. However, the surgical time is prolonged.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability.

METHODS

An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.

[Robotic rectal surgery]

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent cancerous diseases in industrial nations, whereby tumors of the rectum constitute approximately 30-40% of all colorectal cancers. In addition to the implementation and establishment of novel neoadjuvant concepts for the treatment of rectal cancer, there has been a continuous evolution of surgical techniques in recent years towards minimally invasive surgery. In this respect robot-assisted surgery has become more and more popular despite seemingly weak evidence regarding clinical benefits and the not to be ignored economic aspects; however, recently published high-quality studies provide new evidence showing advantages for a robotic resection in patients suffering from rectal cancer. Thus, the progressive implementation of robotic surgical systems is increasingly attaining a scientific foundation.

Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis

Background

The effect of robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy is still controversial, and a comprehensive search and analysis of the current relevant evidence is necessary. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS).

Methods

Up to August 23, 2023, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) was used to calculate the effect sizes using RevMan 5.3.

Results

A total of 12 studies reporting on 11,686 participants were included. Compared with LS, RS increased the operative time (MD 35.16 min; 95% CI: 16.24, 54.07), but it did significantly reduce the risk of the conversion to open surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40, 0.53) and improved the TME incomplete rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93). Moreover, there were no difference in total postoperative complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84, 1.52), circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63, 1.27), distal margin positive (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29, 1.22), blood loss (MD -11.57 ml; 95% CI: -39.09, 15.94), length of hospital stay (MD -0.08 days; 95% CI: -1.26, 1.10), mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.21), lymph node harvested (MD 0.69.; 95% CI: -0.43, 1.82), and the time of first flatus (MD -0.47 days; 95% CI: -1.19, 0.25) between the two groups.

Conclusions

RS was associated with superiority over LS in reducing the risk of the conversion to open surgery and improving TME incomplete rate, which suggested that RS could be an effective method for treating rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=460084, PROSPERO (CRD42023460084).