Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer was increasing, but there was an ongoing debate as to whether it provided any benefit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and prognosis of elective rectal resection for rectal cancer by robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

METHOD

Electronic databases were searched from their inception to 1 February 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison between robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) and performed a meta-analysis of all RCTs according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

11 RCTs including a total of 3107 cases were identified. Compared with LS, RS had a significantly lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.63; P < 0.0001), lower reoperation rate (odds ratio: 0.454; 95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 0.94; P = 0.03), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference: 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 1.04; P = 0.0004), a smaller incidence of positive circumferential margin (CRM) (odds ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.85; P = 0.004). RS had less time to first autonomous urination (mean difference: -0.78; 95% confidence interval: -1.15 to -0.41; P < 0.0001), less time to first defecation (mean difference: -0.40; 95% confidence interval: -0.78 to -0.01; P = 0.04) and less time to first flatus (mean difference: -0.45; 95% confidence interval: -0.89 to -0.01; P = 0.04), more operating time (mean difference: 23.46; 95% confidence interval: 15.76 to 31.16; P < 0.00001). Overall postoperative complication, short-term postoperative complication, estimate blood loss, hospital stays, Intraoperative complication, postoperative mortality, preventive ostomy rates, readmission did not differ significantly between approaches. (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery demonstrated superior safety, efficacy, and prognosis. This meta-analysis supports that RS is a safe and effective option.

Histopathological outcomes of transanal, robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

While total mesorectal excision is the gold standard for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach to achieve adequate oncological outcomes remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the histopathological outcomes of robotic (R-RR), transanal (Ta-RR), laparoscopic (L-RR), and open (O-RR) resections for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened from inception to June 2024. Of the 4186 articles screened, 27 RCTs were selected. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses applying random effects models were performed.

RESULTS

The 27 RCTs included a total of 8696 patients. Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis revealed significantly lower odds of non-complete mesorectal excision with Ta-RR (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.33, 0.92; P = .02; I2:11.7 %) and R-RR (OR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46, 0.94; P = .02; I2:41.7 %) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, lower odds of positive CRMs were observed in the Ta-RR group than in the L-RR group (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.13, 0.91; P = .02; I2:43.9 %). The R-RR was associated with more lymph nodes harvested compared with L-RR (Mean Difference, MD, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.10, 2.52; P = .03; I2:77.3 %). Conversely, Ta-RR was associated with a significantly lower number of lymph nodes harvested compared with all other approaches. SUCRA plots revealed that Ta-RR had the highest probability of being the best approach to achieve a complete mesorectal excision and negative CRM, followed by R-RR, which ranked the best in lymph nodes retrieved.

CONCLUSION

When comparing the effectiveness of the available surgical approaches for rectal cancer resection, Ta-RR and R-RR are associated with better histopathological outcomes than L-RR.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining prominence in colorectal procedures owing to advantages like three-dimensional vision and enhanced dexterity, particularly in rectal surgery. Although recent reviews report similar outcomes between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and RS, this study investigates the evolving trends in outcomes over time, paralleling the increasing experience in RS.

METHODS

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted of randomised controlled trials exploring postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RS or LS for colorectal pathology. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Randomised controlled trials were identified from the PubMed®, Embase® and CINAHL® (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases via the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

Of 491 articles screened, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of postoperative complications revealed no significant difference between RS and LS (relative risk [RR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.18, p=0.72). Meta-regression analysis of postoperative complications demonstrated a significant trend favouring RS over time (yearly change in Ln(RR): -0.0620, 95% CI: -0.1057 to -0.0183, p=0.005). Secondary outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, blood loss, conversion to open surgery, positive circumferential resection margins and lymph nodes retrieved. The only significant findings were shorter operative time favouring LS (mean difference: 41.48 minutes, 95% CI: 22.15 to 60.81 minutes, p<0.001) and fewer conversions favouring RS (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.85, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

As experience in RS grows, evidence suggests an increasing safety profile for patients. Meta-regression revealed a significant temporal trend with complication rates favouring RS over LS. Heterogeneous reporting of complications hindered subgroup analysis of minor and major complications. LS remains quicker. Rising adoption of RS coupled with emerging evidence is expected to further elucidate its clinical efficacy.

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.

[Observational studies to evaluate robotic-assisted lung cancer surgery?]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this work is to assess the quality of observational studies and to make direct and indirect comparisons of robotic surgery with other approaches.

METHOD

We searched various databases between 2014 and 2024 for observational studies comparing robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of confounding bias was present in 90% of studies, while risk of classification bias appeared in 80%. Robotic-assisted surgery reduced the risk of conversion to thoracotomy compared with thoracoscopy with an odds ratio of 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.65), with high heterogeneity between studies (I2=80%). Robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly reduce postoperative complications or 30-day mortality compared with thoracotomy or thoracoscopy. For 5-year overall survival, comparisons of robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy were non-significant with I2 of 55%.

CONCLUSION

This work demonstrates the need for a randomized controlled trial to validate robotic surgery for the treatment of bronchial cancer.

The role of robotic-assisted surgery in the management of rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer poses a significant global health burden. There is a lack of concrete evidence concerning the benefits of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for rectal cancer surgery as compared to laparoscopic and open techniques. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the intraoperative, postoperative, and safety outcomes of robotic surgery in this context.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A search of MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Randomized and non-randomized studies up to February 2, 2024 comparing robotic surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery for rectal cancer. The outcomes of interest were operative time, blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, conversion rate, postoperative hospital stay, survival to hospital discharge, urinary retention rate, and anastomotic leakage rate. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool means and dichotomous data to derive weighted mean differences and odds ratios, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were shortlisted after the study selection process with a total of 25 458 rectal cancer patients. From the intraoperative outcomes, RAS was significantly associated with an increased operative time (WMD: 41.04, P <0.00001), decreased blood loss (WMD: -24.56, P <0.00001), decreased conversion rates (OR: 0.39, P <0.00001), lesser stay at the hospital (WMD: -1.93, P <0.00001), and no difference was found in lymph nodes harvested. Similarly, RAS group had a significantly greater survival to hospital discharge (OR: 1.90, P =0.04), decreased urinary retention rate (OR: 0.59, P =0.002), and no difference was seen in anastomotic leakage rate.

CONCLUSION

RAS demonstrates favorable outcomes for rectal cancer patients, contributing to global prevention and control efforts, health promotion, and addressing non-communicable disease risk factors. Further research and public awareness are needed to optimize RAS utilization in this context.

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 vs laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A propensity score matching cohort study and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery.

RESULTS

Of 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in operative time (P = 0.564), intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.314), reoperation rate (P = 0.314), lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.309), or circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate (P = 0.314) between the two groups. The meta-analysis showed patients in the RS group had fewer positive CRMs (P = 0.04), lesser estimated blood loss (P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.02), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) than patients in the LS group.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS.

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.

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

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

Robotic colorectal surgery and future directions

As the adoption of robotic-assisted procedures expands across various surgical specialties, colorectal surgery stands out as a prominent beneficiary. This rise in usage can be traced back to the increased accessibility of robotic platforms and a growing institutional shift towards cutting-edge surgical methods. When compared with traditional laparoscopic methods, robotic techniques offer distinct advantages. Their true potential shines in surgeries involving complex anatomical regions, where the robot's enhanced dexterity and range of motion prove invaluable. The three-dimensional, magnified view provided by robotic systems further boosts surgical precision and clarity. These advantages render robotic assistance especially suitable for colorectal surgeries, notably in intricate areas such as the rectum and endoluminal spaces. As the medical world emphasizes minimally invasive surgical methods, there's a pressing need to evolve and optimize robotic techniques in colorectal surgery. This article traces the evolution of robotic interventions in colorectal surgeries, highlighting both its historical milestones and anticipated future trends. We'll also explore emerging robotic tools and systems set to reshape the colorectal surgical arena.

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancers

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery (RS) is experiencing major development, particularly in the context of rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize data from the literature, focusing specifically on the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancers, based on the hypothesis that that robotic surgery can find its most rational indication in this anatomical location.

METHOD

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2000 recommendations, including all randomized trials that compared robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) that were found in the Medline-PICO, Cochrane Database, Scopus and Google databases. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane Handbook method and the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE method. The analysis was carried out with R software Version 4.2-3 using the Package for Meta-Analysis "meta" version 6.5-0.

RESULTS

Eight randomized trials were included (with a total of 2342 patients), including four that focused specifically on mid-low rectal cancer (n=1,734 patients). No statistically significant difference was found for overall morbidity, intra-operative morbidity, anastomotic leakage, post-operative mortality, quality of mesorectal specimen, and resection margins. The main differences identified were a lower conversion rate for RS (RR=0.48 [0.24-0.95], p=0.04, I2=0%), and a longer operative time for RS (mean difference=39.11min [9.39-68.83], p<0.01, I2=96%). The other differences had no real clinical relevance, i.e., resumption of flatus passage (5hours earlier after RS), and lymph node dissection (one more lymph node for LS).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis does not confirm the initial hypothesis and does not show a statistically significant or clinically relevant benefit of RS compared to LS for mid-low rectal cancer.

Minimally Invasive Lower Anterior Resections - Better than Open But Not All the Same

Background/Objective: Optimal approach for lower anterior resection has been closely debated. The relatively new addition of the robotic approach adds a layer of complexity to this topic. The majority of the literature has compared the possible approaches between two techniques; however, only a few studies have comprehensively compared all 3 approaches at the same time, especially in a non-academic center.Study Design: This is a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database of data from a large group of private-practice colorectal surgeons in a large metropolitan area. Specifically, rectal resections using open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches were queried. A total of 130 patients underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic oncological lower anterior resection from 2016 to January 2020.Results: Statistical significance of length of stay was noted between the three approaches with the mean length of stay for open being 8.08 days, laparoscopic being 7.04 days, and robotic being 4.96 days (P < .005). No statistical significance was noted for estimated blood loss, operating time, or postoperative complications including anastomotic leak, ileus, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, surgical site infection, and urinary tract infection. When directly comparing any minimally invasive surgery approach to open, estimated blood loss was decreased in addition to the shortened length of stay (P < .05).Conclusions: This study demonstrates that MIS LAR has significant benefit over the open approach. However, finding that robotic surgery had was superior to laparoscopic LAR which was surprising and important. This experience in the private world raises the question as to whether robotic LAR should be considered the standard of care.

Laparoscopic versus robotic abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The current evidence is inconclusive on whether robotic or laparoscopic surgery is the optimal platform for minimally invasive surgery. Existing comparisons techniques focus on short-term outcomes only, while potentially being confounded by a lack of standardisation in robotic procedures. There is a pertinent need for an up-to-date comparison between minimally invasive surgical techniques. We aimed to systematically review randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in major surgery.

METHODS

Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to 13th September 2022. Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in abdominal and pelvic surgery. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Short-term, health-related quality of life, and long-term, outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies, across thirteen procedures, involving 7364 patients were included. All of the studies reported non-significant differences in mortality between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. In majority of studies, there was no significant difference in complication rate (n = 31/35, 85.6%), length of postoperative stay (n = 27/32, 84.4%), and conversion rate (n = 15/18, 83.3%). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter operative time (n = 16/31, 51.6%) and lower total cost (n = 11/13, 84.6%). Twenty three studies reported on quality of life outcomes; majority (n = 14/23, 60.9%) found no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery with regards to mortality and morbidity outcomes in the majority of studies. Robotic surgery was frequently associated with longer operative times and higher overall cost. Selected studies found potential benefits in post-operative recovery time, and patient-reported outcomes; however, these were not consistent across procedures and trials, with most studies being underpowered to detect differences in secondary outcomes. Future research should focus on assessing quality of life, and long-term outcomes to further elucidate where the robotic platform could lead to patient benefits, as the technology evolves.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Intra- and Post-Operative Complications

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic surgery is attracting ever-growing interest for its potential advantages such as small incisions, fine movements, and magnification of the operating field. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the differences in perioperative outcomes between the two approaches.

METHODS

We screened the main online databases from inception to May 2023. We included studies in English enrolling adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery. We used the following exclusion criteria: surgery with the involvement of thoracic esophagus, and patients affected by severe heart, pulmonary and end-stage renal disease. We compared intra- and post-operative complications, length of hospitalization, and costs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs were included. We found no differences in the rate of anastomotic leakage, cardiovascular complications, estimated blood loss, readmission, deep vein thrombosis, length of hospitalization, mortality, and post-operative pain between robotic and laparoscopic surgery; post-operative pneumonia was less frequent in the robotic approach. The conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the robotic approach, which was characterized by shorter time to first flatus but higher operative time and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic gastrointestinal surgery has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic technique such as lower conversion rate, faster recovery of bowel movement, but it has higher economic costs.

Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved using open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or transanal techniques (TaTME). However, the optimal approach for access remains controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess operative and oncological outcomes of all four surgical techniques.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched systematically from inception to September 2020, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two TME surgical techniques. A network meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects framework and mixed treatment comparison was performed. Primary outcomes were the rate of clear circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as > 1 mm from the closest tumour to the cut edge of the tissue, and completeness of mesorectal excision. Secondary outcomes included radial and distal resection margin distance, postoperative complications, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the relative effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome. The higher the SUCRA value, the higher the likelihood that the intervention is in the top rank or one of the top ranks.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 6151 patients were included. Compared with OpTME, there was no difference in the rates of clear CRM: LapTME RR = 0.99 (95% (Credible interval) CrI 0.97-1.0); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1). There was no difference in the rates of complete mesorectal excision: LapTME RR = 0.98 (95% CrI 0.98-1.1); RoTME RR = 1.1 (95% CrI 0.98-1.4); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.91-1.2). RoTME was associated with improved distal resection margin distance compared to other techniques (SUCRA 99%). LapTME had a higher rate of conversion to open surgery when compared with RoTME: RoTME RR = 0.23 (95% CrI 0.034-0.70). Length of stay was shortest in RoTME compared to other surgical approaches: OpTME mean difference in days (MD) 3.3 (95% CrI 0.12-6.0); LapTME MD 1.7 (95% CrI - 1.1-4.4); TaTME MD 1.3 (95% CrI - 5.2-7.4). There were no differences in 5-year overall survival (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.74, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.79, 3.4), disease-free survival rates (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.76, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.52, 2.4), or anastomotic leakage (LapTME RR = 0.92 (95% CrI 0.63, 1.1); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.48, 1.8); TaTME RR = 0.53 (95% CrI 0.19, 1.2). The overall quality of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments across all outcomes including primary and secondary outcomes was deemed low.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients eligible for a RCT, RoTME achieved improved distal resection margin distance and a shorter length of hospital stay. No other differences were observed in oncological or recovery parameters between (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or trans-anal TME (TaTME). However, the overall quality of evidence across all outcomes was deemed low.

Fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in comparing laparoscopic versus robotic abdominopelvic surgeries

BACKGROUND

Utility of robotic over laparoscopic approach has been an area of debate across all surgical specialties over the past decade. The fragility index (FI) is a metric that evaluates the frailty of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) findings by altering the status of patients from an event to non-event until significance is lost. This study aims to evaluate the robustness of RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominopelvic surgeries through the FI.

METHODS

A search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs with dichotomous outcomes comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery in general surgery, gynecology, and urology. The FI and reverse fragility Index (RFI) metrics were used to assess the strength of findings reported by RCTs, and bivariate correlation was conducted to analyze relationships between FI and trial characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 21 RCTs were included, with a median sample size of 89 participants (Interquartile range [IQR] 62-126). The median FI was 2 (IQR 0-15) and median RFI 5.5 (IQR 4-8.5). The median FI was 3 (IQR 1-15) for general surgery (n = 7), 2 (0.5-3.5) for gynecology (n = 4), and 0 (IQR 0-8.5) for urology RCTs (n = 4). Correlation was found between increasing FI and decreasing p-value, but not sample size, number of outcome events, journal impact factor, loss to follow-up, or risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominal surgery did not prove to be very robust. While possible advantages of robotic surgery may be emphasized, it remains novel and requires further concrete RCT data.

[Robot-assisted rectal resections-Scoping review for level 1a evidence and retrospective analysis of in-clinic data]

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted rectal resections are said to overcome the known difficulties of laparoscopic rectal surgery through technical advantages, leading to better treatment results; however, published studies reported very heterogeneous results. The aim of this paper is therefore to determine whether there is class 1a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resections. Furthermore, we would like to compare the treatment results of our clinic with the calculated effects from the literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search for class 1a evidence was performed and the calculated effects for 7 preselected outcomes were compared. We then analyzed all elective rectal resections performed in our hospital between 2017 and 2020 and compared the treatment outcomes with the results of the identified meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The results of the 7 identified meta-analyses did not show homogeneous effects for the outcomes operating time and conversion rate, while the calculated effects of the other outcomes studied were largely consistent. Our patient data showed that robotic rectal resections were associated with significantly longer operation times, while the other outcomes were hardly influenced by the surgical technique.

DISCUSSION

Although class 1a meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections already exist, they do not enable an evidence-based recommendation regarding the preference of one of the two surgical techniques. The analysis of our patient data showed that the results achieved in our clinic are largely consistent with the observed effects of the meta-analyses.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

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.

Interischial Spine Distance Is a Simple Index of the Narrow Pelvis That Can Predict Difficulty During Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection

BACKGROUND

A narrow pelvis makes laparoscopic rectal resection difficult. This study aimed to evaluate whether a simple measurement on computed tomography can predict procedural difficulty.

METHODS

A total of 62 patients with low rectal cancer underwent conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection. The interischial spine (IS) distance (ie, the distance between the ischial spines) was measured on an axial computed tomography slice. The operative time, blood loss, and time from the insertion of linear staplers to completion of clamping on the distal end of the rectum (clamp time) were compared between patients with narrow or wide pelvises.

RESULTS

Overall, 42 men and 20 women with low rectal cancer were assessed. The mean tumor size was 34.5 mm. Total or tumor-specific mesorectal excisions were performed in all cases; high ligation and resection of the inferior mesenteric arteries were carried out in 92% of patients. The mean operative time and blood loss were 206 minutes and 15 mL, respectively. Four patients (6.5%) experienced postoperative complications, including 2 anastomotic leaks (3.2%). The mean IS distance was 93.3 mm. In simple linear regression analysis, a shorter IS distance correlated with a longer operative time (R2=0.08, P=0.030) and the clamp time (R2=0.07, P=0.046). Using a receiver operating characteristic curve, a narrow pelvis was defined as an IS distance <94.7 mm. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that an IS distance <94.7 mm (odds ratio: 3.51; P=0.04) was independently associated with a longer clamp time.

CONCLUSIONS

The IS distance is a simple and useful measurement for predicting the difficulty of laparoscopic low anterior resection.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A retrospective study of post-operative complications and cost analysis in robotic rectal resection versus laparoscopic rectal resection

Background

Robotic rectal cancer surgery has proven to be a viable alternative to laparoscopic surgery in treating rectal cancer. This study assessed the short-term operative measures of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.

Material

Data was obtained retrospectively from July 2019 to November 2021. Patient demographics, pre-and post-operative features, initial bowel movement, length of hospital stay, and short-term postoperative outcomes such as harvested lymph node, sepsis, Clavien–Dindo Classification, and cost were evaluated.

Results

A total of 155 patients were treated for colorectal cancer, with 64 receiving robotic surgery and 91 receiving laparoscopic surgery. According to the Clavien–Dindo classification, there is a significant P < 0.05 between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgery, with robotic having fewer patients in grade III-IV than laparoscopic. Despite this, laparoscopic surgery is associated with more sepsis patients (P < 0.05), and harvested lymph nodes are likewise associated with significant results.

Conclusion

With respect to post-operative complication and cost analysis, our finding imply that robotic rectal resection achieves better-quality short-term outcome but more costly than laparoscopic as well as Clavien–Dindo classification plays a crucial role in assessing postoperative rectal cancer complications and considerably impacts the quality of life.

Mesenteric Vascular Evaluation with Pre-operative Multidetector Computed Tomographic Angiography and Intraoperative Indocyanine Green Angiography to Reduce Anastomotic Leaks after Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

Background

The aim of this prospective study was to determine the effect of mesenteric vascular evaluation using pre-operative multidetector computed tomography angiography (MDCTA) and intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) angiography on reducing the anastomotic leak rate of colorectal cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive resection.

Methods

Twenty-seven consecutive patients with colorectal cancer were studied, 18 males and 9 females, average age 69.1 ± 3.9 years. All patients underwent pre-operative mesenteric vascular evaluation using MDCTA with three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction and intraoperative evaluation of perfusion using ICG angiography. Twelve patients underwent laparoscopic resection (Olympus Visera Elite II OTV-S200) and 15 patients underwent robotic resection (DaVinci Si). Colorectal resection lines and anastomoses were guided by intraoperative ICG perfusion. Postoperative anastomotic leaks were assessed.

Results

Pre-operative MDCTA 3D reconstructions defined the left colic and sigmoid artery anatomy and guided operative planning. The intraoperative ICG angiography resulted in a change of the planned lines of resection in seven patients (26%). The rate of postoperative anastomotic leaks in this study was 0% (0/27), compared to a leak rate of 6.8% at our institution in the preceding two years.

Conclusion

Pre-operative evaluation of mesenteric vascular anatomy using MDCTA with 3D reconstruction and intraoperative evaluation of perfusion using ICG angiography were found to be technically feasible and safe. An appropriately designed study should be undertaken to prove whether it was truly effective at reducing the postoperative anastomotic leak rate in colorectal cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive resection at our institution.

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 double bipolar method for robotic total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer

Although meta-analyses and systematic reviews have clarified the benefits of robotic surgery, few studies have focused on robotic rectal surgery (RRS) and the use of Endowrist® instruments. Therefore, we evaluated RRS using the double bipolar method (DBM) and compared its short-term outcomes with those of RRS using the single bipolar method (SBM). This study enrolled 157 consecutive patients and all procedures were performed by the same surgeon and recorded through short video clips. We analyzed the patient demographics and short-term clinical outcomes. Although this observational study has several limitations, the console time for total mesorectal excision using the DBM was significantly shorter than that using the SBM. Although the DBM did not demonstrate a specific learning curve, it was a safe and feasible procedure even for patients with advanced disease. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the DBM.

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.

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

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

Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery has been touted as a possible way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and has shown promise in rectal resections, thus shifting traditional open surgeons to a minimally invasive approach. The safety, efficacy, and learning curve have been established for most colorectal applications. With this and a robust sales and marketing model, utilization of the robot for colorectal surgery continues to grow steadily. However, this disruptive technology still requires standards for training, privileging and credentialing, and safe implementation into clinical practice.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer has important technical limitations. Robot-assisted and transanal TME (TaTME) may overcome these limitations, potentially leading to lower conversion rates and reduced morbidity. However, comparative data between the three approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for laparoscopic TME, robot-assisted TME and TaTME in expert centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between 2015 and 2017 in expert centres for laparoscopic, robot-assisted or TaTME were included. Outcomes for TME surgery performed by the specialized technique in the expert centres were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was conversion rate. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1078 patients were included. In rectal cancer surgery in general, the overall rate of primary anastomosis was 39.4, 61.9 and 61.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME centres respectively (P < 0.001). For specialized techniques in expert centres excluding abdominoperineal resection (APR), the rate of primary anastomosis was 66.7 per cent in laparoscopic, 89.8 per cent in robot-assisted and 84.3 per cent in TaTME (P < 0.001). Conversion rates were 3.7 , 4.6 and 1.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME respectively (P = 0.134). The number of incomplete specimens, circumferential resection margin involvement rate and morbidity rates did not differ.

CONCLUSION

In the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer more primary anastomoses are created in robotic and TaTME expert centres.

The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown.

PURPOSE

To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).

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.

[Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results]

BACKGROUND

The number of oncological robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections is rapidly increasing in Germany and worldwide; however, the indications, technique and potential limitations of this surgical technique are still discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The standardized modular surgical technique, the results in our clinic and the currently published evidence are presented.

RESULTS

The procedure should be divided into seven modules in terms of standardization and teaching. After the learning curve there are principally no limitations or contraindications. The robotic-assisted approach is superior to open surgery in the following points: blood loss, lymph node harvest, negative circumferential resection margin (CRM), complication rate and length of hospital stay. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy the conversion rate and postoperative sexual and bladder function disorders are decreased. The operating time is longer.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer resection is firmly established and standardized. The technique is superior to open surgery and conventional laparoscopy in some important aspects and is developing into the standard for this disease.

The risk of conversion in minimally invasive oncological abdominal surgery. Meta-analysis of randomized evidence comparing traditional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted techniques

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of conversion associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus robot-assisted surgery (ROB) in patients undergoing abdominal oncological surgery. Possible differences between ROB and LAP on postoperative overall and major morbidity, operative time, and length of hospitalization were also assessed.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of LAP versus ROB surgery in patients with abdominal malignancy. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Central registries through September 2020. Risk of bias was estimated concerning randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.

RESULTS

A total of 1867 patients from 12 trials were included in this review. The rate of conversion was significantly higher for LAP than for ROB patients (10 trials, 1447 participants, p = 0.03, OR = 0.56 [0.33, 0.95]). There was a nonsignificant advantage of ROB over LAP on the rate of overall postoperative morbidity (12 trials, 1867 participants, p = 0.32, OR = 0.83) and major morbidity (7 trials, 792 participants, p = 0.87, OR= 0.93). ROB was also associated with prolonged operative time and abbreviated postoperative hospitalization as compared to LAP (p = 0.002, MD = 27.87, and p = 0.04, MD = -0.57, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available highest level of evidence, the application of ROB decreases the incidence of unplanned conversion into an open procedure as compared to standard LAP in the setting of oncological minimally invasive surgery.

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.

Fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery within the current hospital setting: an achievable goal?

BACKGROUND

Although currently limited, the requirement for colorectal trainees to attain skills in robotic surgery is likely to increase due to further utilization of robotic platforms globally. The aim of the study is to describe the training programme utilized and assess outcomes of fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A structured robotic training programme was generated across a tertiary hospital setting. Review of four prospectively maintained fellow operative logbooks was performed to assess caseload and skill acquisition. Operative and patient-related outcomes were compared with consultant trainer performed cases. Data were analysed using R with a P < 0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

The structured robotic training scheme is a two-tiered system over a 12-month period. The trainer-directed pathway comprised of a robotic console safety course followed by cart-side assisting, a wet lab animal course, dual-console accreditation training course and onsite proctoring, prior to becoming an independent console surgeon. Over 2 years, 265 robotic (n = 143 primary/component surgeon) cases were undertaken with fellows A, B, C and D involved in 63, 77, 75 and 50 robotic colorectal cases, respectively. Individual learning curves revealed independent procedure competency at cases 11, 14, 15 and 12, respectively, for robotic anterior resection. There was no significant difference observed in operative time (P = 0.39), blood loss (P = 0.41), lymph node harvest (P = 0.35), conversion rates (2% versus 4%), anastomotic leaks (1% versus 3%) and R0 resection rates (100% versus 98% colonic, 96% versus 96% rectal, P = 0.48) between surgical fellows and consultant trainers. Clavien-Dindo(III-IV) complications were similar (10% versus 6%,P = 0.25) with no mortalities encountered.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible and safe to train fellows in robotic colorectal surgery without compromise of operative- and patient-related outcomes.

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Compared to Conventional Surgical Approaches (Laparoscopic or Open): A Systematic Overview of Reviews

OBJECTIVE

Describe clinical outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, survival) after robotic surgery compared to open or laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery utilization has increased over the years across a wide range of surgical procedures. However, evidence supporting improved clinical outcomes after robotic surgery is limited.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of systematic reviews from inception to January 2019 for systematic reviews describing postoperative outcomes after robotic surgery. We qualitatively described patient outcomes of commonly performed robotic procedures: radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, lobectomy, thymectomy, rectal resection, partial nephrectomy, distal gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, hepatectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and cholecystectomy.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-four systematic reviews included 336 studies and 18 randomized controlled trials reporting on patient outcomes after robotic compared to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data from the randomized controlled trials demonstrate that robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy offered fewer biochemical recurrence and improvement in quality of recovery and pain scores only up to 6 weeks postoperatively compared to open radical prostatectomy. When compared to laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic surgery offered improved urinary and sexual functions. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer had fewer conversion to open compared to laparoscopic. Otherwise, robotic surgery outcomes were similar to conventional surgical approaches for other procedures except for radical hysterectomy where minimally invasive approaches may result in patient harm compared to open approach.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery has been widely incorporated into practise despite limited supporting evidence. More rigorous research focused on patient-important benefits is needed before further expansion of robotic surgery.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been applied in the clinic for decades; nevertheless, which surgical approach has a lower rate of postoperative complications is still inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative complications within 30 days between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery based on randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (until May 2020) that compared robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery were searched through PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc). Data regarding sample size, clinical and demographic characteristics, and postoperative complications within 30 days, including overall postoperative complications, severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III), anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, bleeding, ileus, urinary complications, respiratory complications, conversion to open surgery, unscheduled reoperation, perioperative mortality, and pathological outcomes, were extracted. The results were analyzed using RevMan v5.3.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials that included 507 robotic and 516 laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery cases were included. Meta-analysis showed that the overall postoperative complications within 30 days [Z = 1.1, OR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.88-1.57), P = 0.27], severe postoperative complications [Z = 0.22, OR = 1.12, 95% CI (0.41-3.07), P = 0.83], anastomotic leakage [Z = 0.96, OR = 1.27, 95% CI (0.78-2.08), P = 0.34], surgical site infection [Z = 0.18, OR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.61-1.79), P = 0.86], bleeding [Z = 0.19, OR = 0.89, 95% CI (0.27-2.97), P = 0.85], ileus [Z = 1.47, OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.38-1.15), P = 0.14], urinary complications [Z = 0.66, OR = 1.22, 95% CI (0.67-2.22), P = 0.51], respiratory complications [Z = 0.84, OR = 0.64, 95% CI (0.22-1.82), P = 0.40], conversion to open surgery [Z = 1.73, OR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.35-1.07), P = 0.08], unscheduled reoperation [Z = 0.14, OR = 0.91, 95% CI (0.26-3.20), P = 0.89], perioperative mortality [Z = 0.28, OR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.15-4.12), P = 0.78], and pathological outcomes were similar between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer was comparable to laparoscopic surgery with respect to postoperative complications within 30 days.

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic NOSE for sigmoid and rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery with natural orifice specimen extraction (La-NOSE) is being performed more frequently for the minimally invasive management of sigmoid and rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncological safety and efficacy of La-NOSE versus conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed for studies that compared clinical or oncological outcomes of conventional laparoscopic resection using NOSE with conventional laparoscopic resection for sigmoid and rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Compared with CL group, the length of hospital stay and the pain score on the first day were shorter in the La-Nose group. The La-NOSE group had a lower incidence of total perioperative complications (OR 0.46; 95% CI [0.32 to 0.66]; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) (OR 0.11; 95% CI [0.04 to 0.29]; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) than the CL group, while the anastomotic leakage showed no significant difference between the La-Nose group and the CL group (P = 0.19). 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) were no significant difference between the La-Nose group and the CL group (P = 0.43, P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

La-NOSE can achieve oncological and surgical safety comparable to that of CL for patients with sigmoid and rectal cancer. La-NOSE in patients was associated with a shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first flatus or defecation, less postoperative pain, and fewer surgical site infections (SSIs) and total perioperative complications. In general, the operative time in La-NOSE was longer than that in CL. The long-term oncological efficacy of La-NOSE seems to be equivalent to that of CL.

Research quality and transparency, outcome measurement and evidence for safety and effectiveness in robot-assisted surgery: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has potential panspecialty surgical benefits. High-quality evidence for widespread implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the RAS evidence base for the quality of randomized evidence on safety and effectiveness, specialty 'clustering', and outcomes for RAS research.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. All pathologies and procedures utilizing RAS were included. Studies were limited to RCTs, the English language and publication within the last decade. The main outcomes selected for the review design were safety and efficacy, and study purpose. Secondary outcomes were study characteristics, funding and governance.

RESULTS

Searches identified 7142 titles, from which 183 RCTs were identified for data extraction. The commonest specialty was urology (35·0 per cent). There were just 76 unique study populations, indicating significant overlap of publications; 103 principal studies were assessed further. Only 64·1 per cent of studies reported a primary outcome measure, with 29·1 per cent matching their registration/protocol. Safety was assessed in 68·9 per cent of trials; operative complications were the commonest measure. Forty-eight per cent of trials reported no significant difference in safety between RAS and comparator, and 11 per cent reported RAS to be superior. Efficacy or effectiveness was assessed in 80·6 per cent of trials; 43 per cent of trials showed no difference between RAS and comparator, and 24 per cent reported that RAS was superior. Funding was declared in 47·6 per cent of trials.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for RAS is of limited quality and variable transparency in reporting. No patterns of harm to patients were identified. RAS has potential to be beneficial, but requires continued high-quality evaluation.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Short-Term Oncological Outcomes of Initial 178 Cases

Emerging techniques in minimally invasive rectal resection include robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME). The Da Vinci Surgical System offers precise dissection in narrow and deep confined spaces and is gaining increasing acceptance during recent times. The aim of this study is to analyse our initial experience of R-TME with Da Vinci Xi platform in terms of perioperative and oncological outcomes in the context of data from recently published randomised ROLARR trial amongst minimally invasive novice surgeons. Patients who underwent R-TME or tumour specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between May 2016 and November 2019 were identified from a prospectively maintained single institution colorectal database. Demographic, clinical-pathological and short-term oncological outcomes were analysed. Of the 178 patients, 117 (65.7%) and 31 (17.4%) patients had lower and mid third rectal cancer. Most of the tumours were locally advanced, cT3-T4: 138 (77.5%). One hundred/178 (56.2%) underwent sphincter preserving TME. Eighty-seven (48.8%) were grade II adenocarcinoma. Nonmucinous adenocarcinoma was the predominant histology, 138 (78.4%). One hundred one cases (56.7%) were pT3. The mean number of lymph node yield was 13 ± 5. Distal resection margin and circumferential resection margin were positive in 2 (1.12%), 12 cases (6.74%) respectively. Eleven cases (6.7%) had to be converted to open TME. Mean blood loss and duration of surgery was 170 ± 60 ml and 286 ± 45 min respectively. Five percent cases had an anastomotic leak. Grade IIIa-IIIb Clavien Dindo (CD) morbidity score was reported to be in 12 (6.75%) and 10 (5.61%) cases. Median length of hospitalisation was 7 days (range 4-14 days). Perioperative and pathologic outcomes following robotic rectal resection is associated with good short-term oncological outcomes and is safe, effective, and reproducible by a minimally invasive novice surgeon.

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 rectal resection: oncologic outcomes

Robotic surgery has progressively gained popularity in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, only a few studies on its oncologic effectiveness are currently present, with contrasting results. The purpose of this study is to report a single surgeon’s experience on robotic rectal resection (RRR) for cancer, focusing on the analysis of oncologic outcomes, both in terms of pathological features and long-term results. One-hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients who underwent RRR for rectal cancer from January 2013 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes were collected. The analyzed oncologic outcomes were pathological features [distal (DM), circumferential margin (CRM) status and quality of mesorectal excision (TME)] and long-term outcomes [overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)]. The mean operative time was 275 (± 60.5) minutes. Conversion rate was 6.6%. Complications occurred in 27 cases (22.1%) and reoperation was needed in 2 patients (1.5%). The median follow-up was 30.5 (5.9–86.1) months. None presented DM positivity. CRM positivity was 2.5% (2 cases) while a complete TME was reached in 94.3% of cases (115 patients). Recurrence rate was 5.7% (2 local, 4 distant and 1 local plus distant tumor relapse). OS and DFS were 90.7% and 83%, respectively. At the multivariate analysis, both CRM positivity and near complete/incomplete TME were recognized as negative prognostic factors for OS and DFS. Under appropriate logistic and operative conditions, robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be oncologically effective, with adequate pathological results and long-term outcomes. It also offers acceptable peri-operative outcomes, further confirming the safety and feasibility of the technique.

Early Experience With Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Compared With Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is widely used for rectal cancers; however, it is sometimes challenging, especially in obese patients with low tumors, particularly after chemoradiotherapy. Transanal total mesorectal excision was developed to overcome these limitations in terms of visualization, dissection, and stapling.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the pathologic and early oncologic outcomes of the laparoscopic and transanal approaches.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective comparative study using propensity score-matched analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a tertiary hospital specializing in oncology.

PATIENTS

In total, 722 inpatients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer from January 2014 to December 2017 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic (N = 514) and transanal (N = 208) total mesorectal excision were performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was pathologic outcome including circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications and overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local recurrence rates.

RESULTS

The 2 groups of the cohort had several differences; thus, we performed propensity score matching. The circumferential resection margin was involved in 13.4% and 12.9% of the laparoscopic and transanal groups (p = 0.88). The distal resection margin was involved in 1% and 3% of the laparoscopic and transanal groups (p = 0.28). Complete or nearly complete total mesorectal excision was 98.0% and 96.5% in the laparoscopic and transanal groups (p = 0.41). Postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.54) but were significantly higher in patients with tumors <5 cm from the anal verge who underwent laparoscopy (laparoscopic group = 11.9%; transanal group = 1.7%; p = 0.04). There were no statistical differences in the 3-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival, or local recurrence rates between groups.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study design with a short follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Early experience with the transanal approach showed similar pathologic outcomes as those of conventional laparoscopy; hence, it should be considered as a surgical option for lower rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B352. EXPERIENCIA TEMPRANA CON LA ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL TRANSANAL EN COMPARACIÓN CON LA ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ANÁLISIS DE PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN: La escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica se usa ampliamente para los cánceres rectales; Sin embargo, a veces es un desafío, especialmente en pacientes obesos con tumores bajos, particularmente después de la quimiorradioterapia. La escisión mesorrectal total transanal se desarrolló para superar estas limitaciones en términos de visualización, disección y grapado.Comparar los resultados patológicos y oncológicos precoces de los enfoques laparoscópico y transanal.estudio comparativo retrospectivo con puntaje de propensión-análisis emparejadoHospital terciario especializado en oncología.En total, se incluyeron 722 pacientes hospitalizados que se sometieron a una escisión mesorrectal total por cáncer rectal desde Enero de 2014 hasta Diciembre de 2017.Se realizó escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica (n = 514) y transanal (n = 208).El resultado primario fue el resultado patológico, incluyendo el involucramiento del margen de resección circunferencial y distal. Los resultados secundarios fueron complicaciones intraoperatorias, postoperatorias y supervivencia general, supervivencia libre de recurrencia y tasas de recurrencia local.Los dos grupos de la cohorte tuvieron varias diferencias; así, realizamos un emparejamiento de puntuación de propensión. El margen de resección circunferencial estuvo involucrado en 13.4% y 12.9% de los grupos laparoscópico y transanal, respectivamente (p = 0.88). El margen de resección distal estuvo involucrado en 1% y 3% de los grupos laparoscópico y transanal, respectivamente (p = 0.28). La escisión mesorrectal total completa o casi completa fue de 98.0% y 96.5% en los grupos laparoscópico y transanal, respectivamente (p = 0.41). Las complicaciones postoperatorias con Clavien-Dindo grado ≥ III no difirieron significativamente entre los grupos (p = 0,54), pero fueron significativamente mayores en pacientes con tumores de < 5 cm del borde anal que se sometieron a laparoscopia (grupo laparoscópico, 11,9%; grupo transanal, 1,7%; p = 0,04). No hubo diferencias estadísticas en la supervivencia general a 3 años, la supervivencia libre de recurrencia y las tasas de recurrencia local entre los grupos.Diseño de estudio retrospectivo, corto período de seguimiento.La experiencia temprana con el enfoque transanal mostró resultados patológicos similares a los de la laparoscopia convencional; por lo tanto, debe considerarse como una opción quirúrgica para el cáncer rectal mas bajo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B352. (Traducción-Dr Yesenia Rojas-Khalil).

Robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers: has a paradigm change occurred? A systematic review by updated meta-analysis

AIM

The debate about the oncological adequacy, safety and efficiency of robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers continues. Therefore, an updated, traditional and cumulative meta-analysis was performed with the aim of assessing the new evidence on this topic.

METHOD

A systematic search of the literature for data pertaining to the last 25 years was performed. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to cumulatively assess the accumulation of evidence over time.

RESULTS

Patients with a significantly higher body mass index (BMI), tumours located approximately 1 cm further distally and more patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were included in the robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) cohort compared with those in the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) cohort [RTME, mean difference (MD) = 0.22 (0.07, 0.36), P = 0.005; LTME, MD = -0.97 (-1.57, 0.36), P < 0.002; OR = 1.47 (1.11, 1.93), P = 0.006]. Significantly lower conversion rates to open surgery were observed in the RTME cohort than in the LTME cohort [OR = 0.33 (0.24, 0.46), P < 0.001]. Operative time in the LTME cohort was significantly reduced (by 50 min) compared with the RTME cohort. Subgroup analysis of the three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) challenged all the significant results of the main analysis and demonstrated nonsignificant differences between the RTME cohort and LTME cohort.

CONCLUSION

Although the RTME cohort included patients with a significantly higher BMI, more distal tumours and more patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, this cohort demonstrated lower conversion rates to open surgery when compared with the LTME cohort. However, subgroup analysis of the RCTs demonstrated nonsignificant differences between the two procedures.

Surgical technique for mesorectal division during robot-assisted laparoscopic tumor-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) for rectal cancer using da Vinci Si surgical system: the simple switching technique (SST)

In a narrow pelvic cavity, performing sufficient tumor-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) is difficult. Even in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS), mesorectal division is difficult in a narrow pelvic cavity. To overcome this difficulty, we invented a novel method of mesorectal division. In this new approach, we switched the fenestrated bipolar forceps and the double-fenestrated forceps with each other so that both instruments were placed on the same (right) side of the patient. After the mesorectal fat and vessels were coagulated using the fenestrated bipolar forceps, coagulated tissues were divided using the monopolar scissors in the same direction. We named this technique the "simple switching technique (SST)". We retrospectively collected data and evaluated the usefulness of SST in 24 consecutive patients who underwent RALS TSME between July 2018 and January 2020. Twelve patients underwent SST, and 12 patients underwent other conventional surgical methods (non-SST). The median operation time for mesorectal division was 809.5 s (range 395-1491 s) in the SST group and 985.5 s (range 493-2353 s) in the non-SST group. The coefficient of variation for non-SST was 0.545, which was > 1.5 times the coefficient of 0.360 for SST. Although no significant differences were found for operation time for mesorectal division, the operation time for mesorectal division by SST tended to be shorter than by non-SST (P = 0.157). No significant differences were found regarding short-term outcomes between the groups. SST is feasible and can be an optional method of mesorectal division in RALS TSME.

The severity of postoperative complications after robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

OBJECTIVE

Robotic surgery (RS) has been increasingly used for the resection of rectal cancer, and its advantages over laparoscopic surgery (LS) have been demonstrated. However, few studies focused on the severity of postoperative complications. This study aimed to compared the postoperative complications within 30 days after RS over LS according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification.

METHODS

A literature research of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically performed. The studies comparing the complications of RS and LS for rectal cancer based on the C-D classification were enrolled. Primary outcomes were C-D grade III, IV, V, III-V (severe complications).

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (3193 patients) were included in the final analysis: 1554 underwent RS and 1639 underwent LS. The RS group was associated with significantly lower rates of severe complications (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90, P = 0.005), C-D grade IV (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90, P = 0.005), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.91, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in C-D grade III, C-D grade I, II, I-II (minor complications), overall complications, bleeding, wound complications, postoperative ileus, urinary retention, readmission, reoperation between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is safe for rectal cancer and may be an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery, with lower rates of severe complications, C-D grade IV, and anastomotic leak. Further large randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this conclusion.