Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Minimally invasive versus open multivisceral resection for rectal cancer clinically invading adjacent organs: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), such as laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal cancer, is performed worldwide. However, limited information is available on the advantages of MIS over open surgery for multivisceral resection for cases clinically invading adjacent organs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective propensity score-matching study of consecutive clinical T4b rectal cancer patients who underwent curative intent surgery between 2006 and 2021 at the University of Tokyo Hospital.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients who underwent multivisceral resection were analyzed. Thirty-three patients underwent MIS (the MIS group), while 36 underwent open surgery (the open group). Twenty-three patients were matched to each group. Conversion was required in 2 patients who underwent MIS (8.7%). R0 resection was achieved in 87.0% and 91.3% of patients in the MIS and open groups, respectively. The MIS group had significantly less blood loss (170 vs. 1130 mL; p < 0.0001), fewer Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 2 postoperative complications (30.4% vs. 65.2%; p = 0.0170), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (20 vs. 26 days; p = 0.0269) than the open group. The 3-year cancer-specific survival rate, relapse-free survival rate, and cumulative incidence of local recurrence were 75.7, 35.9, and 13.9%, respectively, in the MIS group and 84.5, 45.4, and 27.1%, respectively, in the open group, which were not significantly different (p = 0.8462, 0.4344, and 0.2976, respectively).

CONCLUSION

MIS had several short-term advantages over open surgery, such as lower complication rates, faster recovery, and a shorter hospital stay, in rectal cancer patients who underwent multivisceral resection.

Comparing short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Da Vinci Robotics-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer is becoming more widely used. There is no strong evidence that robotic-assisted surgery and laparoscopic surgery have similar outcomes in elderly patients with TME for rectal cancer.

AIM

To determine the improved oncological outcomes and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients undergoing TME surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study of the clinical pathology and follow-up of elderly patients who underwent TME surgery at the Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine was conducted from March 2020 through September 2023. The patients were divided into a robot-assisted group (the R-TME group) and a laparoscopic group (the L-TME group), and the short-term efficacy of the two groups was compared.

RESULTS

There were 45 elderly patients (≥ 60 years) in the R-TME group and 50 elderly patients (≥ 60 years) in the L-TME group. There were no differences in demographics, conversion rates, or postoperative complication rates. The L-TME group had a longer surgical time than the R-TME group [145 (125, 187.5) vs 180 (148.75, 206.25) min, P = 0.005), and the first postoperative meal time in the L-TME group was longer than that in the R-TME (4 vs 3 d, P = 0.048). Among the sex and body mass index (BMI) subgroups, the R-TME group had better outcomes than did the L-TME group in terms of operation time (P = 0.042) and intraoperative assessment of bleeding (P = 0.042). In the high BMI group, catheter removal occurred earlier in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (3 vs 4 d, P = 0.001), and autonomous voiding function was restored.

CONCLUSION

The curative effect and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted TME surgery for elderly patients with rectal cancer are similar to those of laparoscopic TME surgery; however, robotic-assisted surgery has better short-term outcomes for individuals with risk factors such as obesity and pelvic stenosis. Optimizing the learning curve can shorten the operation time, reduce the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, and improve the prognosis.

Robotic, transanal, and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for locally advanced mid/low rectal cancer: European multicentre, propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgery for low/mid locally advanced rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare three minimally invasive surgical approaches for TME with primary anastomosis (laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, and transanal TME).

METHODS

Records of patients undergoing laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, or transanal TME between 2013 and 2022 according to standardized techniques in expert centres contributing to the European MRI and Rectal Cancer Surgery III (EuMaRCS-III) database were analysed. Propensity score matching was applied to compare the three groups with respect to the complication rate (primary outcome), conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 468 patients (mean(s.d.) age of 64.1(11) years) were included; 190 (40.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic TME, 141 (30.1%) patients underwent robotic TME, and 137 (29.3%) patients underwent transanal TME. Comparative analyses after propensity score matching demonstrated a higher rate of postoperative complications for laparoscopic TME compared with both robotic TME (OR 1.80, 95% c.i. 1.11-2.91) and transanal TME (OR 2.87, 95% c.i. 1.72-4.80). Robotic TME was associated with a lower rate of grade A anastomotic leakage (2%) compared with both laparoscopic TME (8.8%) and transanal TME (8.1%) (P = 0.031). Robotic TME (1.4%) and transanal TME (0.7%) were both associated with a lower conversion rate to open surgery compared with laparoscopic TME (8.8%) (P < 0.001). Time to flatus and duration of hospital stay were shorter for patients treated with transanal TME (P = 0.003 and 0.001 respectively). There were no differences in operating time, intraoperative complications, blood loss, mortality, readmission, R0 resection, or survival.

CONCLUSION

In this multicentre, retrospective, propensity score-matched, cohort study of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, newer minimally invasive approaches (robotic TME and transanal TME) demonstrated improved outcomes compared with laparoscopic TME.

Technical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal tumors: a single-center safety and feasibility study

PURPOSE

Robot-assisted surgery has a multi-joint function, which improves manipulation of the deep pelvic region and contributes significantly to perioperative safety. However, the superiority of robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopic surgery remains controversial. This study compared the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included 273 patients with rectal tumors who underwent surgery with anastomosis between 2017 and 2021. In total, 169 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (Lap group), and 104 underwent robot-assisted surgery (Robot group). Postoperative complications were compared via propensity score matching based on inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

The postoperative complication rates based on the Clavien-Dindo classification (Lap vs. Robot group) were as follows: grade ≥ II, 29.0% vs. 19.2%; grade ≥ III, 10.7% vs. 5.8%; anastomotic leakage (AL), 6.5% vs. 4.8%; and urinary dysfunction (UD), 12.1% vs. 3.8%. After adjusting for the IPTW method, although AL rates did not differ significantly between groups, postoperative complications of both grade ≥ II (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.87, p < 0.01) and grade ≥ III (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.53, p < 0.01) were significantly less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group. Furthermore, urinary dysfunction also tended to be less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.00; p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors provides better short-term outcomes than laparoscopic surgery, supporting its use as a safer approach.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and contrast the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the treatment of obese patients. In February 2024, we carried out an exhaustive search of key global databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, limiting our focus to studies published in English and Chinese. We excluded reviews, protocols lacking published results, articles derived solely from conference abstracts, and studies not relevant to our research objectives. To analyze categorical variables, we utilized the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method along with random-effects models, calculating inverse variances and presenting the outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was determined when p values were less than 0.05. In our final meta-analysis, we included eight cohort studies, encompassing a total of 5,004 patients. When comparing the robotic surgery group to the laparoscopic group, the findings revealed that the robotic group experienced a longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 37.53 min, 95% (CI) 15.58-59.47; p = 0.0008), a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -0.68 days, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.10; p = 0.02), and reduced blood loss (WMD = -49.23 mL, 95% CI -64.31 to -34.14; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding overall complications, conversion rates, surgical site infections, readmission rates, lymph node yield, anastomotic leakage, and intestinal obstruction. The results of our study indicate that robot-assisted colorectal surgery offers benefits for obese patients by shortening the length of hospital stay and minimizing blood loss when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Nonetheless, it is associated with longer operation times and shows no significant difference in terms of overall complications, conversion rates, rehospitalization rates, and other similar metrics.

Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study

The robotic platform matches or surpasses laparoscopic surgery in postoperative results. However, limited date and slow adoption are noticed in the middle east. We aimed to report outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare it to larger more experienced centers. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between 2021 and 2023 of 107 patients who had robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery was included in the study. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and the quality of oncological specimen. Of 107 patients, 57 were in the robotic and 50 were in the laparoscopic surgery groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in overall morbidity (46.8 vs. 53.2%, p = 0.9), serious morbidity (10.5 vs. 8%, p = 0.7), or mortality (0 vs. 4%, p = 0.2). Regarding oncological outcomes, there were no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of lymph node harvested (17.7 ± 6.9 vs 19.0 ± 9.7, p = 0.5), R0 resections (92.7 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.5), and the rate of complete mesorectal excision (92.7 vs. 71.4%, p = 0.19). The study found that the robotic group had an 86% reduction in conversion rate to open surgery compared to the laparoscopic group, despite including more obese and physically dependent patients (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.7, p = 0.01). Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective as laparoscopic surgery in smaller colorectal surgery programs led by fellowship-trained robotic surgeons, with outcomes comparable to those of larger programs.

Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer in patients with varied body mass indexes: evaluating of short-term outcomes

The main aim of this study was to evaluate and contrast the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures in the treatment of low and mid rectal cancer in different BMI (body mass index) groups. The clinical records of patients who had laparoscopic or robotic proctectomy at a single center between December 2019 and August 2023 were analyzed. Then we utilized a classification framework to categorize individuals based on their BMI into three unique groups: non-obese, overweight, and obese. The short-term efficacy was evaluated. A consecutive sample of 1413 patients was included in this retrospective investigation. 1158 people out of the total sample chose laparoscopic surgery, whereas 255 people chose robotic surgery. In the group of obese people, robotic surgery showed a statistically significant decrease in blood loss compared to laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.026). People who were overweight or obese were in the hospital for a shorter amount of time after robotic surgery than after laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.033 and P = 0.031, respectively). People with different BMIs in the robotic surgery group took less time to have a flatus passage and oral intake those in the laparoscopic surgery group. Oncological outcomes and the frequency of complications were comparable between the two treatments with different BMIs. Surgical resection of patients undergoing low-anterior surgery may benefit from a robotic approach, particularly in overweight and obese patients.

Learning curve for single-port robot-assisted colectomy

PURPOSE

Since the introduction of robotic surgery, robots for colorectal cancer have replaced laparoscopic surgery, and a single-port robot (SPR) platform has been launched and is being used to treat patients. We analyzed the learning curve and initial complications of using an SPR platform in colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed 39 patients who underwent SPR colectomy from April to October 2019. All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon using an SPR device. A learning curve was generated using the cumulative sum methodology to assess changes in total operation time, docking time, and surgeon console time. We grouped the patients into 3 groups according to the time period: the first 11 were phase 1, the next 11 were phase 2, and the last 17 were phase 3.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 61.28±13.03 years, and they had a mean body mass index of 23.79±2.86 kg/m2. Among the patients, 23 (59.0%) were male, and 16 (41.0%) were female. The average operation time was 186.59±51.30 minutes, the average surgeon console time was 95.49±35.33 minutes, and the average docking time (time from skin incision to robot docking) was 14.87±10.38 minutes. The surgeon console time differed significantly among the different phases (P<0.001). Complications occurred in 8 patients: 2 ileus, 2 postoperation hemoglobin changes, 3 urinary retentions, and 1 complicated fluid collection.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the learning curve for SPR colectomy was achieved after the 18th case.

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic low anterior resection using ArtiSential® versus robotic approach in patients with rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision using conventional straight fixed devices may be technically difficult because of the narrow and concave pelvis. Several laparoscopic articulating tools have been introduced as an alternative to robotic systems. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic low anterior resection using ArtiSential® and robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 682 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection  for rectal cancer from September 2018 to December 2021. Among them, 82 underwent laparoscopic surgery using ArtiSential® (group A) and 201 underwent robotic surgery (group B). A total of 73 [group A; 66.37 ± 11.62; group B 65.79 ± 11.34] patients were selected for each group using a propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics between group A and B. Mean operative time was longer in group B than A (163.5 ± 61.9 vs 250.1 ± 77.6 min, p < 0.001). Mean length of hospital stay was not significantly different between the two groups (6.2 ± 4.7 vs 6.7 ± 6.1 days, p = 0.617). Postoperative complications, reoperation, and readmission within 30 days after surgery were similar between the two groups. Pathological findings revealed that the circumferential resection margins were above 10 mm in both groups (11.00 ± 7.47 vs 10.17 ± 6.25 mm, p = 0.960). At least 12 lymph nodes were sufficiently harvested, with no significant difference in the number harvested between the groups (20.5 ± 9.9 vs 19.7 ± 7.3, p = 0.753).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic low anterior resection using ArtiSential® can achieve acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. ArtiSential®, a multi-joint and articulating device, may serve a feasible alternative approach to robotic surgery in rectal cancer.

Robotic abdominoperineal resection for T4b rectal cancer using the da Vinci SP platform

PURPOSE

The aim of the present report wasto describe a novel technique of robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for the treatment of T4b low rectal cancer using the da Vinci® Single-Port (SP) system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

METHODS

A 3-cm transverse incision was made in the left lower quadrant of the abdomen, in the area designated for permanent colostomy. A Uniport® (Dalim Medical, Seoul, Korea) was introduced and a 25 mm multichannel SP trocar was inserted into the Uniport. A 5-mm laparoscopic assistant port was introduced on the upper midline. A video showing each step of the technique is attached.

RESULTS

Two consecutive female patients (70 and 74 years old) underwent SP robotic APR with partial resection of the vagina 8 weeks after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. In both cases, rectal cancer was located 1 cm above the anal verge and invaded the vagina (initial stage and ymrT stage T4b). Operative time was 150 and 180 min, respectively. Estimated blood loss was 10 and 25 ml, respectively. No postoperative complications occurred. The length of postoperative hospital stay was 5 days in both cases. The final pathological stage was ypT4bN0 and ypT3N0 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first experience, SP robotic APR appears to be a safe and feasible procedure for locally advanced low rectal cancer. In addition, the invasiveness of the procedure is reduced by means of the SP system, which only requires a single incision in the area designated for colostomy. Prospective studies on a larger number of patients are necessary to confirm the outcomes of this technique compared to other minimally invasive approaches.

Analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of hand-sewn anastomosis for the digestive tract with Da Vinci robot in rectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

The study aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy and safety of hand-sewn anastomosis for the digestive tract with Da Vinci robot in rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to collect the clinical data from 27 patients who underwent Da Vinci robotic rectal cancer radical surgery in the department of gastrointestinal surgery at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University from August 2019 to February 2022. All patients received a manual suture for digestive tract reconstruction. After the posterior wall was sutured, the anterior wall was sutured continuously. Finally, a prilling thread was used to sew the junction of the front and rear walls. Perioperative indexes and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

All 27 patients successfully underwent the operation. Neither conversion to laparotomy nor perioperative death occurred. The operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 183.6 ± 44.8 min and 54.8 ± 34.4 ml, respectively. A total of 15.3 ± 7.8 lymph nodes were harvested. The pain score 24 h after operation was 1.3 ± 1.3. The time out of bed, the time to exhaust, and the time to eat were 15.6 ± 2.9 h, 2.2 ± 0.8 days, and 2.1 ± 0.6 days, respectively. A total of 4 patients (14.8%) developed complications after the operation. Grade B anastomotic leakage gradually resolved after drainage and antibiotic therapy in 1 case. A patient with grade C anastomotic leakage received a second operation for ileostomy. One patient with postoperative pneumonia recovered after anti-infective treatment. Another patient with intraperitoneal hemorrhage improved after symptomatic treatment with blood transfusion and hemostasis. The postoperative hospitalization time and total hospitalization costs were 8.9 ± 4.4 days and 89,236.1 ± 13,527.9 yuan, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual suture with Da Vinci robotic surgery system is safe and feasible for reconstructing the digestive tract in rectal cancer surgery.

World-first report of low anterior resection for rectal cancer with the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System: a case report

BACKGROUND

The hinotori™ Surgical Robot System was approved for use in colorectal cancer surgery in Japan in 2022. This robot has advantages, such as an operation arm with eight axes, an adjustable arm base, and a flexible three-dimensional viewer, and is expected to be utilized in rectal cancer surgery. Herein, we report the world's first surgery for rectal cancer using the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 71-year-old woman presented to our hospital with bloody stools. A colonoscopy revealed type 2 advanced cancer in the rectum, and a histological examination exposed a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma. Abdominal enhanced computed tomography divulged rectal wall thickening without significant swelling of the lymph nodes or distant metastasis. Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging showed tumor invasion beyond the intrinsic rectal muscle layer. The patient was diagnosed with cStage IIa (cT3N0M0) rectal cancer and underwent low anterior resection using the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System. Based on an adequate simulation, surgery was safely performed with appropriate port placement and arm base-angle adjustment. The operating time was 262 min, with a cockpit time of 134 min. Subsequently, the patient was discharged 10 days postoperatively without complications. The pathological diagnosis was pStage IIA (cT3N0M0) and the circumferential resection margin was 6 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the first case of low anterior resection for rectal cancer using the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System, in which a safe and appropriate oncological surgery was performed.

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.

Learning curve for robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre, prospective study

AIM

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly important in colorectal surgery. Recognition of the short, safe learning curve (LC) could potentially improve implementation. We evaluated the extent and safety of the LC in robotic resection for rectal cancer.

METHOD

Consecutive rectal cancer resections (January 2018 to February 2021) were prospectively included from three French centres, involving nine surgeons. LC analyses only included surgeons who had performed more than 25 robotic rectal cancer surgeries. The primary endpoint was operating time LC and the secondary endpoint conversion rate LC. Interphase comparisons included demographic and intraoperative data, operating time, conversion rate, pathological specimen features and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

In 174 patients (69% men; mean age 62.6 years) the mean operating time was 334.5 ± 92.1 min. Operative procedures included low anterior resection (n = 143) and intersphincteric resection (n = 31). For operating time, there were two or three (centre-dependent) LC phases. After 12-21 cases (learning phase), there was a significant decrease in total operating time (all centres) and an increase in the number of harvested lymph nodes (two centres). For conversion rate, there were two or four LC phases. After 9-14 cases (learning phase), the conversion rate decreased significantly in two centres; in one centre, there was a nonsignificant decrease despite the treatment of significantly more obese patients and patients with previous abdominal surgery. There were no significant differences in interphase comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The LC for RAS in rectal cancer was achieved after 12-21 cases for the operating time and 9-14 cases for the conversion rate. RAS for rectal cancer was safe during this time, with no interphase differences in postoperative complications and circumferential resection margin.

Efficacy of robot-assisted vs. laparoscopy surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) vs. laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on RACS and LACS in CRC patients published up to January 4, 2022. The outcomes included operative time, length of stay, conversion, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+), and complications.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (412 participants with RACS and 420 with LACS) were included. The pooled results showed shorter operative time (WMD=44.28, 95%CI: 9.36, 79.19, P = 0.013; PQ<0.001) and lower costs in RACS than in LACS (WMD=1546.15, 95%CI: 761.51, 2330.78, P<0.001; PQ=0.208), while no differences were observed for the length of stay (WMD=-0.31, 95%CI: -1.13,0.51, P = 0.456; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.990), blood loss (WMD=-33.72, 95%CI: -205.06, 137.62, P = 0.700; I2=89.0%, PQ=0.003), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD=1.38, 95%CI: -0.09, 2.85, P = 0.066; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.645), the time of first flatus (WMD=0.20, 95%CI: -0.20, 0.61, P = 0.328; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.337), rates of conversion to open surgery (RR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.38,1.01, P = 0.053; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.459), complication rates (RR=1.11, 95%CI: 0.83,1.49, P = 0.466; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.948), and CRM+ rates (RR=1.02, 95%CI: 0.66,1.58, P = 0.938; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.408). No publication bias was detected. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results for the operative time were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CRC who underwent RACS and LACS had a similar length of stay, blood loss, the time of first flatus, rates of conversion to open surgery, the number of harvested lymph nodes, complication rates, and CRM+ rates; however, RACS led to longer surgeries and higher costs than LACS.

Comparison of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in short-terms outcomes of middle rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery is becoming less invasive as technology advances. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) ushered in a new era of minimally invasive techniques. At the same time, NOSES is gaining popularity in the world. With their distinct advantages, surgical robots have advanced the development of NOSES. The aim of current study was to compare the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted NOSES and laparoscopic-assisted NOSES for the treatment of middle rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with middle rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted NOSES at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January 2020 and June 2022 had their clinicopathological data collected retrospectively. 46 patients were enrolled in the study: 23 in the robotic group and 23 in the laparoscopic group. Short-term outcomes and postoperative anal function in the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the clinicopathological data between the two groups. The robotic group had less intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.04), less postoperative abdominal drainage (p = 0.02), lower postoperative white blood cell counts (p = 0.024) and C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.017), and shorter catheter removal time when compared to the laparoscopic group (p = 0.003). Furthermore, there were no significant difference in mean operative time (159 ± 31 min vs 172 ± 41 min) between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = 0.235), but time to naked the rectum (86.4 ± 20.9 min vs. 103.8 ± 31.5 min p = 0.033) and time of digestive tract reconstruction (15.6 ± 3.88 min vs. 22.1 ± 2.81 min p < 0.01) in the robotic group were significantly shorter than laparoscopic group. The robotic group had lower postoperative Wexner scores than the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

This research reveals that combining a robotic surgical system and NOSES results in superior outcomes, with short-term outcomes preferable to laparoscopic-assisted NOSES.

Innovation in gastrointestinal surgery: the evolution of minimally invasive surgery-a narrative review

Background

Minimally invasive (MI) surgery has revolutionised surgery, becoming the standard of care in many countries around the globe. Observed benefits over traditional open surgery include reduced pain, shorter hospital stay, and decreased recovery time. Gastrointestinal surgery in particular was an early adaptor to both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Within this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery and a critical outlook on the evidence surrounding its effectiveness and safety.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for the topic of this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed. The methodology for evidence synthesis was in line with the four steps for narrative reviews outlined in current literature. The key words used were minimally invasive, robotic, laparoscopic colorectal, colon, rectal surgery.

Conclusion

The introduction of minimally surgery has revolutionised patient care. Despite the evidence supporting this technique in gastrointestinal surgery, several controversies remain. Here we discuss some of them; the lack of high level evidence regarding the oncological outcomes of TaTME and lack of supporting evidence for robotic colorectalrectal surgery and upper GI surgery. These controversies open pathways for future research opportunities with RCTs focusing on comparing robotic to laparoscopic with different primary outcomes including ergonomics and surgeon comfort.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery in Rectal Cancer: Analysis of Medium-Term Oncological Outcomes

Background. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), thus improving the quality of the surgery. So far, many studies have reported the technical feasibility and short-term oncological results of robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) in treating rectal cancer (RC); however, only a few evaluated the survival and long-term oncological outcomes. The following study compared the medium-term oncological data, 3-year overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) of L-TME and R-TME in patients with rectal cancer. Methods. In this retrospective study, records of patients (patients with stage I-III rectal cancer) who underwent surgery (127 cases of L-TME and 148 cases of R-TME) at the Gansu Provincial Hospital between June 2016 and March 2018 were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated the 3-year OS and DFS for all patients treated with curative intent. Results. The conversion rate was significantly higher, and the postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the L-TME group than in the R-TME group (all P<.05). Major complications were significantly lower in the robotic group (P<.05). The 3-year DFS rate (for all stages) was 74.8% for L-TME and 85.8% for R-TME (P = .021). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS and OS were significantly higher in the R-TME group (P<.05). Conclusion. R-TME can achieve better oncological outcomes and is more beneficial for RC patients compared with L-TME, especially for those with stage III rectal cancers. Nevertheless, further randomized controlled trials and a longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these findings.

Application of the advance incision in robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection

Background

The incidence of rectal cancer is increasing each year. Robotic surgery is being used more frequently in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer; however, several problems associated with robotic surgery persist, such as docking the robot repeatedly to perform auxiliary incisions and difficulty exposing the operative field of obese patients. Herein we introduce a new technology that effectively improves the operability and convenience of robotic rectal surgery.

Objectives

To simplify the surgical procedure, enhance operability, and improve healing of the surgical incision, we developed an advance incision (AI) technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection, and compared its safety and feasibility with those of intraoperative incision.

Methods

Between January 2016 and October 2021, 102 patients with rectal cancer underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection with an AI or intraoperative incision (iOI) incisions. We compared the perioperative, incisional, and oncologic outcomes between groups.

Results

No significant differences in the operating time, blood loss, time to first passage of flatus, time to first passage of stool, duration of hospitalization, and rate of overall postoperative complications were observed between groups. The mean time to perform auxiliary incisions was shorter in the AI group than in the iOI group (14.14 vs. 19.77 min; p < 0.05). The average incision length was shorter in the AI group than in the iOI group (6.12 vs. 7.29 cm; p < 0.05). Postoperative incision pain (visual analogue scale) was lower in the AI group than in the iOI group (2.5 vs. 2.9 p = 0.048). No significant differences in incision infection, incision hematoma, incision healing time, and long-term incision complications, including incision hernia and intestinal obstruction, were observed between groups. The recurrence (AI group vs. iOI group = 4.0% vs. 5.77%) and metastasis rates (AI group vs. iOI group = 6.0% vs. 5.77%) of cancer were similar between groups.

Conclusion

The advance incision is a safe and effective technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection, which simplifies the surgical procedure, enhances operability, and improves healing of the surgical incision.

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.

Challenges and Learning Curves in Adopting TaTME and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Cusum Analysis

Simple Summary

Rectal cancer surgery remains a challenge and information about the learning curve in adopting new techniques is lacking. This paper analyzes our experience in taTME (since 2015) and robotic surgery (since 2018) at a fully accredited referral center for the treatment of rectal cancer in Spain. In this retrospective study, we aim to analyze the learning curves for taTME and robot-assisted rectal procedures in the incorporation of these platforms into our practice. We sought to describe our team’s experience in incorporating these techniques and to analyze the difficulties that we have had. Hoping that sharing our experience can help other groups improve their results during the difficult initial phase of incorporating new techniques.

Abstract

New techniques are being developed to improve the results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. This paper analyzes the learning curves for transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and robot-assisted surgery in our colorectal surgery department. We analyzed retrospectively data from patients undergoing curative and elective surgery for rectal cancer ≤12 cm from the anal verge. We excluded extended surgeries. We used cumulative sum (CUSUM) curve analysis to identify inflection points. Between 2015 and 2021, 588 patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer at our center: 67 taTME and 79 robot-assisted surgeries. To overcome the operative time learning curve, 14 cases were needed for taTME and 53 for robot-assisted surgery. The morbidity rate started to decrease after the 17th case in taTME and after the 49th case in robot-assisted surgery, but it is much less abrupt in robot-assisted group. During the initial learning phase, the rate of anastomotic leakage was higher in taTME (35.7% vs. 5.7%). Two Urological lesions occurred in taTME but not in robot-assisted surgery. The conversion rate was higher in robot-assisted surgery (1.5% vs. 10.1%). Incorporating new techniques is complex and entails a transition period. In our experience, taTME involved a higher rate of serious complications than robot-assisted surgery during initial learning period but required a shorter learning curve.

Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Background

Although some studies have assessed the learning curve of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, most studies included limited sample sizes, no study used postoperative complications as an independent variable to analyze the learning curve of robotic rectal surgery, and no study evaluated the influence of the learning curve on long-term oncologic outcomes.

Methods

Clinical data on consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer by a single surgeon between January 2015 and December 2018 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were retrospectively collected. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) were used to visualize the learning curve of operation time and postoperative complications (CD ≥ grade II). Comparisons of clinical outcomes at different learning phases analyzed by RA-CUSUM were performed after propensity score matching.

Results

A total of 389 consecutive patients were included in the analysis. The numbers of patients needed to overcome the learning curves of operation time and postoperative complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were 34 and 36, respectively. The learning process was divided into two phases based on RA-CUSUM: the learning phase (1st-36th cases) and the mastery phase (37th-389th cases). Before matching, the mastery phase had more patients with older age, lower tumor location, and neoadjuvant therapy. After matching, the two phases exhibited similar characteristics. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications in the mastery phase were reduced compared with the learning phase, with a median follow-up of 35 months, and the long-term oncologic outcomes were not significantly different between the two phases.

Conclusions

An experienced laparoscopic surgeon initially implements robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, surgical outcomes improved after 36 cases, and the learning curve seemingly did not have an obvious impact on long-term oncologic outcomes.

Analysis of bowel function, urogenital function, and long-term follow-up outcomes associated with robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgical approaches to total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The present study comparatively analyzed short-term clinical effectiveness and long-term follow-up endpoints associated with robotic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (LAS) when used to treat low rectal cancer.

METHOD

Within such a single-center retrospective cohort analysis, low rectal cancer patients that underwent RAS (n=200) or LAS (n=486) between January 2015 and beginning of July 2018 were enrolled.

RESULTS

The mean operative durations in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 249±64 min and 203±47 min, respectively (P<0.001). Temporary ileostomy rates in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 64.5% and 51.6% (P = 0.002). In addition, major variations across such cohorts regarding catheter removal timing, time to liquid intake, time to first leaving bed, and length of hospitalization (all P<0.001). This distal resection margin distance within the RAS cohort was diminished in comparison to LAS cohort (P=0.004). For patients within the LAS cohort, the time required to recover from reduced urinary/female sexual function was > 6 months post-surgery (P<0.0001), whereas within the RAS cohort this interval was 3 months (P<0.0001). At 6 months post-surgery, male sexual function within RAS cohort was improved in comparison to LAS cohort (P<0.001). At 6 months post-surgery, Wexner scores revealed similar results (P<0.001). No major variations within overall or disease-free survival were identified across these cohorts at 3 or 5 years post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic sphincter-preserving surgery is a safe and effective surgical technique in low rectal patients in terms of postoperative oncological safety and long-term endpoints. And the RAS strategy provides certain additional benefits with respect to short-term urogenital/anorectal functional recovery in treated patients compared to LAS.

Robotic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Compared to Laparoscopic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: Oncologic Results of the Past 5 Years

Colorectal cancer is one of the deadliest diseases on the planet. Rectal cancer (RC) is the 8 th most common type of cancer disease worldwide, accounting for over 300,000 fatalities in 2018. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered as the gold standard approach for surgical RC management. To alleviate technical problems associated with dissection of distal rectal, transanal procedure to mesorectum was developed. The robotic operating platforms’ development has brought about the most significant change. The robotic method, which was described first in the year 2001, is gaining popularity in colorectal surgery. A stable camera platform with three-dimensional imaging and tremor filtering, motion scaling, instruments with numerous degrees of freedom, 3 rd arm for fixed retraction, ambidextrous capability, superior ergonomics, and less fatigue, all these advantages have all influenced robotics implementation. However, there are certain disadvantages to robotic surgery, such as high expenses, lengthy time of operation, a bulky cart, and absence of haptic sense. Robotic transanal TME (R-TA TME) is unique method that integrates potential advantages of perineal dissection with precise control of distal margins, along with all robotic technology advantages with respect to dexterity and greater precision. This review goal is to evaluate the available literature critically regarding R-TA TME in comparison to laparoscopic TA TME (L-TA TME) using the most prevalent histopathological metrics, which are the circumferential resection margin, the distal rectal margin, recurrence rate, specimen quality, advantages, and disadvantages. Oncological results for the past 5 years were used. The resources were obtained from electronic sources such as Google Scholar and PubMed. The conclusion of this review revealed that R-TA TME is as safe as well as feasible as L-TA TME, is technically possible, and has comparable oncological results and short-term post-operative outcomes. However, further investigation is required to evaluate long-term oncological or functional results.

The current status of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer in Japan

The da Vinci^® surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was approved in 2009 by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. In gynecology, robotic surgery for hysterectomy for benign indications and early-stage endometrial cancer has been covered by National Health Insurance since 2018. In a context where the da Vinci surgical system has prevailed in urology departments in Japan, gynecological robotic surgery has spread rapidly once it was covered by insurance. Although minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (minimally invasive surgery, or MIS) in Japan has a specific context, there are several problems with its safety, surgeon education, and cost in Japan. To maximize the many advantages of robotic surgery, its effectiveness needs to be carefully evaluated and this new technology needs to be safely incorporated in practice.

Learning curve for single-port robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery

Purpose

We analyzed the learning curve of single-port robotic (SPR)-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

Fifty-seven consecutive SPR-assisted rectal cancer surgery cases performed by the same surgeon were considered in surgical interventions for rectal cancer. Total operation time (OT), docking time (DT), and surgeon console time (SCT) measured during surgery were used to parametrize the learning curve. The parameters representing the learning curve were evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM).

Results

The mean value of total OT was 241.8 ± 91.7 minutes, the mean value of DT was 20.6 ± 19.1 minutes, and the mean value of SCT was 135.9 ± 66.7 minutes. The learning curve was divided into phase 1 (initial 16 cases), phase 2 (second 16 cases), and phase 3 (subsequent 25 cases). The peak on the CUSUM graph occurred in the 21st case. The longest OT among phases was in phase 2. Complications were most frequent in phase 2. However, complications of Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade IIIb were most frequent in phase 3 with 2 patients. The most common complications were fluid collection and urinary retention (7 patients each). Complications of CD grade IIIb required one stomal revision due to stoma obstruction and one irrigation and loop ileostomy due to anastomosis leakage.

Conclusion

Improvement in surgical performance of SPR assisted rectal cancer operation was achieved after 21 cases. The three phases identified in the cumulative sum analysis showed a significant decrease in operative time after the middle stage of the learning curve without an increase in the complication rate.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Simple Summary

Surgery remains a mainstay of combined modality treatment at patients with rectal cancer; however, there is a growing interest in using laparoscopic techniques (LG); including robotic-assisted techniques (RG). Therefore, we have prepared a meta-analysis of the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. The results indicate a number of advantages of RG in terms of both safety and efficacy. Operative time in the RG group was shorter and associated with a statistically significantly lower conversion of the procedure to open surgery. RG technique provided a shorter duration of hospital stay and lowered urinary risk retention. No differences were found between these techniques regarding TNM stage; N stage or lymph nodes harvested. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% in RG vs. 98.8% for LG.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to 10 November 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was 2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD = −0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs. LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs. 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

Comparing outcomes of robotic versus open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Background

The outcomes of robot-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, compared with open resection, have not been fully characterized.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of pathologic, short-term, and long-term outcomes in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent total or tumour-specific mesorectal excision at a high-volume cancer centre between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. Outcomes after robotic and open surgery were compared on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

Out of 1048 resections performed, 1018 patients were reviewed, with 638 who underwent robotic surgery and 380 open surgery. Robotic surgery was converted to the open approach in 17 (2.7 per cent) patients. Patients who underwent robotic surgery were younger (median 54 (range 22–91) years versus median 58 (range 18–97) years; P < 0.001), had higher tumours (median 80 (range 0–150) mm from the anal verge versus median 70 (0–150) mm; P = 0.001), and were less likely to have received neoadjuvant therapy (64 per cent versus 73 per cent; P = 0.003). For patients who underwent a robotic total mesorectal excision, the operating time was longer (median 283.5 (range 117–712) min versus median 249 (range 70–661) min; P < 0.001). However, the rate of complications was lower (29 per cent versus 45 per cent; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was shorter (median 5 (range 1–32) days versus median 7 (range 0–137) days; P < 0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 2.9 years. The proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin did not differ between the groups, nor did the rate of local recurrence (robotic versus open: 3.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.9 to 5.6 versus 2.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.0 to 4.6; P = 0.400), systemic recurrence (robotic versus open: 11.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 8.5 to 14.8 versus 13.0 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 9.2 to 16.5; P = 0.300), or overall survival (robotic versus open: 97.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 96.3 to 99.3 versus 93.5 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 90.8 to 96.2; P = 0.050). The same results were documented in a subanalysis of 370 matched patients, including 185 who underwent robotic surgery and 185 open surgery, for the overall incidence of any postoperative complications, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and systemic recurrence.

Conclusion

In patients with rectal cancer who are candidates for curative resection, robotic mesorectal excision is associated with lower complication rates, shorter length of stay, and equivalent oncologic outcomes, compared with open mesorectal excision.

Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

The minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision is a complex and challenging procedure due to technical and anatomical issues which could impair postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes, especially in a defined subgroup of patients. The results from recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery are still conflicting and trans-anal bottom-up approaches have recently been developed. Robotic surgery represents the latest consistent innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery that may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy thanks to an enhanced dexterity, especially in deep narrow operative fields such as the pelvis. Results from population-based multicenter studies have shown the potential advantages of robotic surgery when compared to its laparoscopic counterpart in terms of reduced conversions, complication rates and length of stay. Costs, often advocated as one of the main drawbacks of robotic surgery, should be thoroughly evaluated including both the direct and indirect costs, with the latter having the potential of counterbalancing the excess of expenditure directly related to the purchase and maintenance of robotic equipment. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required to better delineate the advantages of the robotic platform, especially in the subset of most complex and technically challenging patients from both an anatomical and oncological standpoint.

Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision: Is the future now?

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for the curative radical resection of rectal cancers. Minimally invasive TME has been gaining ground favored by the continuous technological advancements. New procedures, such as transanal TME (TaTME), have been introduced to overcome some technical limitations, especially in low rectal tumors, obese patients, and/or narrow pelvis. The earliest TaTME reports showed promising results when compared with the conventional laparoscopic TME. However, recent publications raised concerns regarding the high rates of anastomotic leaks or local recurrences observed in national series. Robotic TaTME (R-TaTME) has been proposed as a novel technique incorporating the potential benefits of a perineal dissection together with precise control of the distal margins, and also offers all those advantages provided by the robotic technology in terms of improved precision and dexterity. Encouraging short-term results have been reported for R-TaTME, but further studies are needed to assess the real role of the new technique in the long-term oncological or functional outcomes. The present review aims to provide a general overview of R-TaTME by analyzing the body of the available literature, with a special focus on the potential benefits, harms, and future perspectives for this novel approach.

Initial Experience in Rectal Cancer Surgery for the Next Generation of Robotic Surgeons Trained in a Dual Console System

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is used worldwide, with an increasing incidence of robotic surgeons. Therefore, the most appropriate educational system for next-generation robotic surgeons should be urgently established.

METHODS

We analyzed 39 patients who underwent robotic rectal surgery performed by a next-generation surgeon with limited experienced in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. The dual console system was used in the initial 15 cases, and we assessed short-term outcomes and the learning curve on operative time using the cumulative sum method.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into two groups: 15 cases in the early phase, and 24 cases in the late phase. The operative time and surgeon console time were significantly shorter in the late phase than the early phase (P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were more frequently observed in the early phase (P = 0.049); however, the estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were not significantly different. In the initial 15 cases that using the dual console, the average operative time changing to the expert surgeon was 82 minutes in the first 5 cases, 19 minutes on average in the next 5 cases, and no change occurred in the last 5 cases. The learning curve peaked after 14 cases, plateaued from case number 15 to 23, and decreased in a linear fashion until the final case.

CONCLUSION

Education of a next generation surgeon using a dual console system for robotic rectal cancer surgery was performed safely.

Colorectal cancer surgery: by Cambridge Medical Robotics Versius Surgical Robot System-a single-institution study. Our experience

With the previous experiences in performing laparoscopic for over a period of 15 years and da Vinci colorectal surgeries from 2010 to 2013, we started operating using the Cambridge Medical Robotics (CMR) Versius Surgical Robot System. The aim of the study is a prospective analysis and evaluation of short-term results of consecutive patients to study the technical feasibility and oncological outcome of robot-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) and ultralow anterior resection (ULAR), using the CMR Versius Surgical Robot System. This study was conducted at single minimal access surgery institute. 31 patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent robot-assisted LAR and ULAR between August 2019 and March 2020. Patient characteristics, perioperative parameters and complications were evaluated. Surgical and pathological outcomes such as quality of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME), free circumferential resection margins and number of lymph nodes dissected were also evaluated. Of 31 patients, 23 were men and 8 women, with mean age of 55.6 years. The mean robotic operative time was 51 min and the mean blood loss was 55 ml. The mean robot docking and undocking time was 17 min and 5 min, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 7 days. The longitudinal and circumferential resection margins were negative in all patients. Histopathological reports of 27 among 31 patients showed complete TME. Splenic flexure of colon mobilization was done laparoscopically. We feel that Versius robot has the qualities in terms of dexterity, vision and intuitive movements, and to translate this technical ability into oncological safety.

A Transabdominal Robotic Purse-String Suture Technique for Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

Introduction: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a novel technique that overcomes the problem of access to the deep pelvis during radical surgery for mid-rectal and lower rectal cancer. Although TaTME has several important steps, the creation of the distal purse-string suture following TaTME plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis. However, this procedure represents a major technical challenge for the surgeon. Robot-assisted surgery may make this suturing procedure easier than laparoscopic surgery because it permits intuitive wrist movements and a three-dimensional view. The aim of the present study was to investigate the usefulness of transabdominal robotic purse-string suture during anastomosis in TaTME. Methods: Twenty-seven patients, who underwent anastomosis using a single stapling technique (SST) during the TaTME of mid-rectal or lower rectal cancer, were enrolled in the study. The patients were allocated to two groups: 11 patients underwent transabdominal robotic purse-string suturing (the Robot group) and 16 patients underwent transanal purse-string suturing (the Transanal group). The characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes of the participants were compared between the two groups. Results: The Robot group tended to have a shorter purse-string suturing time (541 ± 206 seconds versus 729 ± 310 seconds; P = .07). Regarding the shape of the "donut" after SST anastomosis, in the Transanal group, 5 of the 16 participants had incomplete donuts with muscular defects and required additional suturing, whereas in the Robot group, all the participants had complete donuts (P = .04). Conclusions: Transabdominal robotic purse-string suturing may facilitate the suturing procedure and contribute to reliable anastomosis.

Real-world comparison of curative open, laparoscopic and robotic resections for sigmoid and rectal cancer-single center experience

There has been an increase in the utilization of robotic surgery in addition to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches. Aim of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal and sigmoid cancer. One hundred and forty-seven patients (open n = 48, laparoscopic n = 49, robotic n = 50) undergoing curative resections by two surgeons between 2013 and 2020 were included. Data analyzed included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, length of stay, post-operative outcomes, and pathologic surrogates of oncologic results, including total mesorectal excision (TME) quality, circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and lymph node (LN) yield. Median age of population was 68 years (IQR 59-73), majority (68%) were males. Median distance from anal verge in the robotic surgery group was 8 cm, compared to 15 and 14.5 cm in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively, p = 0.029, (laparoscopic vs robotic, p = 0.005 and open vs robotic, p = 0.027). Proportion of patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy in robotic surgery group was higher, p = 0.04. In sub-group of tumors between 3 and 7 cm from anal verge more patients in the robotic surgery group had sphincter preservation, p = 0.006. Length of stay, maximum C-reactive protein, and white blood cell rise favored minimally invasive approaches compared to open surgery. There were no differences in post-operative complications, lymph node yield or CRM positivity rate between the three groups. Robotic surgery approach is safe and allows sphincter preservation without compromising TME quality in rectal cancer surgery.

Short-term outcome in robotic vs laparoscopic and open rectal tumor surgery within an ERAS protocol: a retrospective cohort study from the Swedish ERAS database

BACKGROUND

Advantages of robotic technique over laparoscopic technique in rectal tumor surgery have yet to be proven. Large multicenter, register-based cohort studies within an optimized perioperative care protocol are lacking. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare short-term outcomes in robotic, laparoscopic and open rectal tumor resections, while also determining compliance to the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)®Society Guidelines.

METHODS

All patients scheduled for rectal tumor resection and consecutively recorded in the Swedish part of the international ERAS® Interactive Audit System between January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020, were included (N = 3125). Primary outcomes were postoperative complications and length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes compliance to the ERAS protocol, conversion to open surgery, symptoms delaying discharge and reoperations. Uni- and multivariate comparisons were used.

RESULTS

Robotic surgery (N = 827) had a similar rate of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grades 1-5), 35.9% compared to open surgery (N = 1429) 40.9% (OR 1.15, 95% CI (0.93, 1.41)) and laparoscopic surgery (N = 869) 31.2% (OR 0.88, 95% CI (0.71, 1.08)). LOS was longer in the open group, median 9 days (IRR 1.35, 95% CI (1.27, 1.44)) and laparoscopic group, 7 days (IRR 1.14, 95% CI (1.07, 1.21)) compared to the robotic group, 6 days. Pre- and intraoperative compliance to the ERAS protocol were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter cohort study, robotic surgery was associated with shorter LOS compared to both laparoscopic and open surgery and had lower conversion rates vs laparoscopic surgery. The rate of complications was similar between groups.

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.

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.

Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A National Perspective on Short-term Outcomes and Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Prior randomized trials showed comparable short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP) for rectal cancer. We hypothesize that short-term outcomes for MIP have improved as surgeons have become more experienced with this technique.

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection (APR) or low anterior resection (LAR) were included from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2016-2018). Patients were stratified based on intent-to-treat protocol: open (O-APR/LAR), laparoscopic (L-APR/LAR), robotic (R-APR/LAR), and hybrid (H-APR/LAR). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the impact of operative approach on 30-day morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 4471 procedures were performed (43.41% APR and 36.59% LAR); O-APR 42.72%, L-APR 20.99%, R-APR 16.79%, and H-APR 19.51%; O-LAR 31.48%, L-LAR 26.34%, R-LAR 17.48%, and H-LAR 24.69%. Robotic APR and LAR were associated with shortest length of stay and significantly lower conversion rate. After adjusting for other factors, lap, robotic and hybrid APR and LAR were associated with decreased risk of overall morbidity when compared to open approach. R-APR and H-APR were associated with decreased risk of serious morbidity. No difference in the risk of serious morbidity was observed between the four LAR groups.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate selection of patients for MIP can result in better short-term outcomes, and consideration for MIP surgery should be made.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: Short-term outcomes at a single center

Background

The robotic technique has been established as an alternative approach to laparoscopy for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer.

Methods

The cases of robot-assisted or laparoscopic colorectal resection were collected retrospectively between July 2015 and September 2018. We evaluated patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and pathologic examinations. Short-term outcomes included time to passage of flatus and length of postoperative hospital stay.

Results

A total of 580 patients were included in the study. There were 271 patients in the robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) group and 309 in the laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) group. The time to passage of flatus in the RCS group was 3.62 days shorter than the LCS group. The total costs were increased by 2,258.8 USD in the RCS group compared to the LCS group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The present study suggests that colorectal cancer robotic surgery was more beneficial to patients because of a shorter postoperative recovery time of bowel function and shorter hospital stays.

Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews

Regarding the surgical approaches for rectal cancer, many techniques have been reported in randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and reviews of comparisons between two techniques, e.g. open surgery vs laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery vs robotic surgery, or laparoscopic surgery vs transanal total mesorectal excision. Since robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision were developed after laparoscopic surgery had become an established minimally invasive technique, they have each been compared with laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, a review was performed to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision, and to perform such comparisons among ≥3 of the above mentioned approaches, in the expectation that this review will serve as a reference for aiding treatment selection in future. The results of the current review suggest that all of the examined procedures have advantages and disadvantages, but that there are no decisive factors that could be used to select one procedure over any other. At the present time it cannot be demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, transanal total mesorectal excision, or open surgery is superior to the other techniques, and it is important to select the best technique for each patient from among those that a surgeon can perform. It is also important to maintain a flexible attitude that allows new techniques to be adopted as needed in the future.

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.

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of locally advanced low rectal cancer: Summary of the current evidence

Lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPLN) are a major site for local recurrence following curative resection for low locally advanced rectal cancer. Ongoing advances in imaging techniques have improved predicting LPLN metastasis (LPLNM) during pre-operative staging. However, there is ongoing debate on optimal management of this subgroup of patients with variation between guidance of different societies. In Japan, LPLNM is considered as local disease and addressed by lateral pelvic node dissection (LPLND) in addition to total mesorectal excision (TME). However, in the west, LPLNM is considered as metastatic disease and those patients are offered neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by TME surgery. The potential surgical risks and morbidity associated with LPLND as well as the uncertainty of the oncological outcome have raised the concern that patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer with LPLNM could be over or under-treated. A comprehensive review of literature was performed, summarizing the current evidence on available modalities for predicting LPLNM, the role of LPLND in the management of advanced low rectal cancer and the available surgical approaches with their impact on surgical and oncological outcomes. LPLND is associated with increased operative time, blood loss and post-operative morbidity. The potential benefits for local disease control and survival still awaits high quality studies. There has been increasing number of reports of the use minimally invasive approaches in LPLND in an attempt to reduce post-operative complications. There is need for high quality evidence to define the role of LPLND in management of patients with advanced low rectal cancer.

Impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has advantages in terms of the ergonomic design and expectations of shortening the learning curve, which may reduce the number of patients with adverse outcomes during a surgeon's learning period. We investigated the differences in the learning curves of robotic surgery and clinical outcomes for rectal cancer among surgeons with differences in their experiences of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic surgery for colorectal cancer were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into five groups by surgeons, and their clinical outcomes were analyzed. The learning curve of each surgeon with different volumes of laparoscopic experience was analyzed using the cumulative sum technique (CUSUM) for operation times, surgical failure (open conversion or anastomosis-related complications), and local failure (positive resection margins or local recurrence within 1 year).

RESULTS

A total of 662 patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer were included in the analysis. Number of laparoscopic LAR cases performed by surgeon A, B, C, D, and E prior to their first case of robotic surgery were 403, 40, 15, 5, and 0 cases, respectively. Based on CUSUM for operation time, surgeon A, B, C, D, and E's learning curve periods were 110, 39, 114, 55, and 23 cases, respectively. There were no significant differences in the surgical and oncological outcomes after robotic LAR among the surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the limited impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery, which was greater than previously reported curves.

Postoperative morbidity and mortality after mesorectal excision with laparoscopic versus conventional open lateral lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

Lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) is a challenging procedure due to its technical difficulty and higher incidence of surgical morbidity, thus the purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative morbidity and mortality between laparoscopic and conventional open LLND after mesorectal excision (ME) for advanced rectal cancer. A comprehensive search was conducted in August 2019 based on data from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang Data to identify relevant studies, and studies comparing laparoscopic with conventional open LLND were included. Seven studies with 335 cases in the laparoscopic LLND group and 841 cases in the conventional open LLND group were finally included. Compared with the conventional open LLND group, the laparoscopic LLND group enjoys a lower postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.47,95% CI [0.23, 0.97], P = 0.04), same postoperative mortality (Postoperative mortality in both groups was zero), shorter length of postoperative hospitalization (WMD = -5.30, 95% CI [-8.42, -2.18], P = 0.0009), less wound infection (OR = 0.40,95% CI [0.21, 0.77], P = 0.006), less intestinal obstruction (OR = 0.50,95% CI [0.29, 0.84], P = 0.009), and less urinary retention (OR = 0.61,95% CI [0.38, 0.97], P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage, abdominal pelvic abscess and urinary tract infection between the two groups (P > 0.05). But in the sensitivity analysis, there was a significant change of urinary tract infection (OR = 0.22, 95%CI [0.06, 0.89], P = 0.03), and the degree of between-study heterogeneity decreased greatly. In conclusion, laparoscopic LLND may be a better alternative to conventional open LLND for advanced rectal cancer with lower postoperative morbidity and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Short- and long-term outcomes for transvaginal specimen extraction versus minilaparotomy after robotic anterior resection for colorectal cancer: a mono-institution retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer resection surgery with transvaginal specimen extraction is becoming increasingly accepted and used by surgeons. However, few publications on robotic anterior sigmoid colon and rectal cancer resection with transvaginal specimen extraction (TVSE) have been reported, and a clinical outcome comparison between conventional robotic minilaparotomy (LAP) and transvaginal specimen extraction in anterior sigmoid colon and rectal cancer resection has not been performed. The current study compared the short- and long-term outcomes of TVSE and LAP for sigmoid colon cancer and rectal cancer in a mono-institution.

METHODS

From December 2014 to October 2018, 45 patients who underwent TVSE and 45 patients who underwent LAP matched by tumor location, tumor stage, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, gender, and age at the same period were included in the current study. The short- and long-term outcomes of TVSE and LAP were discussed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in patient characteristics. For the short-term outcomes, the operative time in the TVSE group was longer than that in the LAP group, and the postoperative pain and additional analgesia were lower in the TVSE group. Patients in the TVSE group required slightly less time to pass first flatus. There were no significant differences in overall complications, time to regular diet, length of hospital stay after surgery, estimated blood loss, or pathological outcomes. For long-term outcomes, the 3-year overall survival (94.9% vs. 91.7%, p = 0.702) and 3-year disease-free survival (88.4% vs. 86.2%, p = 0.758) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The robotic TVSE is safe and feasible in selected sigmoid/upper rectal cancer patients with tumor diameter < 5 cm. This approach has slightly better short-term outcomes in terms of less postoperative pain and less analgesic requirements without any significant difference in long-term outcomes.

Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute

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

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.