S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer

Global trends and hotspots in robotic surgery over the past decade: a bibliometric and visualized analysis

Since its introduction, robotic surgery has experienced rapid development and has been extensively implemented across various medical disciplines. It is crucial to comprehend the advancements in research and the evolutionary trajectory of its thematic priorities. This research conducted a bibliometric analysis on the literature pertaining to robotic surgery, spanning the period from 2014 to 2023, sourced from the Web of Science database. The objective was to delineate the publication trends and trace the development of research topics within the domain of robotic surgery. From 2014 to 2023, there has been a consistent upward trend in the annual volume of publications concerning robotic surgery. The United States emerges as the leading country in terms of both the number of publications (n=3402) and citations (n=57731). The Journal of Robotic Surgery has the highest number of publications (n=506), while IEEE Transactions on Robotics has the highest number of citations (n=53). Yonsei University is the institution with the greatest number of publications (n=196), and the University of Washington has the highest average citation count (n=30). Alexandre Mottrie is the author with the most publications and citations (n=70 publications, n=1816 citations). Keyword analysis revealed seven distinct clusters: (1) applications and techniques of robotic surgery; (2) urological surgery and associated complications; (3) gastrointestinal diseases and surgical interventions; (4) robotic thyroid surgery and related complications; (5) gynecological diseases and corresponding surgical procedures; (6) Da Vinci robot and its training; (7) pulmonary diseases and associated surgeries. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been identified as a newly emerging keyword in the field. The corpus of literature on robotic surgery has seen a steady rise over the past decade, marked by extensive collaboration among various countries, institutions, and researchers. This study has delineated the global trends, identified research hotspots, highlighted emerging topics, and outlined the foundational knowledge within the field of robotic surgery. Looking forward, the integration of AI with robotic surgery is poised to offer substantial benefits and is anticipated to become a pivotal trend and area of focus in the field's future advancement.

[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.

Analysis of the impact on sexual function in early-onset overweight male patients with rectal cancer following robotic surgery

The effect of radical resection of male rectal cancer on sexual function has been the focus of attention. Despite this, there remains a dearth of robust evidence regarding the influence of robotic radical resection of rectal cancer on postoperative sexual function, particularly in men diagnosed at an early age. This study aims to explore the implications of robotic radical resection of rectal cancer on sexual function in early-onset overweight male patients diagnosed with this disease. A retrospective analysis was performed on male patients under 50 years old and over 20 years old who were diagnosed with rectal cancer (cT1-3N0M0) and underwent surgical treatment in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from May 2015 to August 2020. Sexual function was evaluated by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) test and scored at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The sexual function of traditional laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer (L-RE) and robotic radical resection of rectal cancer (R-RE) were compared. According to body mass index, L-RE and R-RE groups were further divided into normal body weight groups (LN-RE and RN-RE) and overweight groups (LO-RE and RO-RE), and the sexual function of each group was compared successively. Neither L-RE nor R-RE patients had significant differences in number of lymph nodes removed, tumour size, pathological TNM stage, or first exhaust time or time to eat liquids. The OS and DFS of the L-RE and R-RE groups, as well as the LO-RE and RO-RE groups, did not differ statistically after the logarithmic rank test (P > 0.05). IIEF scores in both the L-RE and R-RE groups declined sharply 1 month after surgery and then steadily increased. The R-RE group's IIEF scores significantly recovered in 6 months, compared to 12 months in the L-RE group. In comparison of subgroups, the results of sexual function in the LN-RE and RN-RE groups were similar to those in the L-RE and R-RE groups. Conversely, the RO-RE group showed slightly improved sexual function recovery than the LO-RE group 3 and 6 months post-surgery. 12 months after surgery, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. With similar long-term oncology outcomes, the robot-assisted surgical approach provided better protection of sexual function for men with early-onset rectal cancer, especially for those with a higher body mass index (BMI).

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been endorsed by clinical guidelines for colon cancer, but not for rectal cancer on account of unapproved oncologic equivalence with open surgery.

AIMS

We started this largest-to-date meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Both randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic proctectomy and open surgery between January 1990 and March 2020 were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase Databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020211718). The data of intraoperative, pathological, postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs and 93 NRCTs including 216,615 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with 48,888 patients received laparoscopic surgery and 167,727 patients underwent open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery group showed faster recovery, less complications and decreased mortality within 30 days. The positive rate of circumferential margin (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.85, p < 0.0001) and distal margin (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.85 p < 0.0001) was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group, but the completeness of total mesorectal excision showed no significant difference. The 3-year and 5-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival were all improved in the laparoscopic surgery group, while the distal recurrence did not differ significantly between the two approaches.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer with respect to oncological outcomes and long-term survival. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including faster recovery and less complications.

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.

Impact of visceral fat area on short-term outcomes in robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers that arise in the digestive tract. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the impact of visceral fat area (VFA) on postoperative outcomes in mid and low rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery (RS). Data were collected on patients who underwent robotic anterior rectal resection in a single center from December 2019 to October 2023. Clinical pathology information was analyzed. Statistical analysis was done on the computed tomography (CT) imaging data. A total of 277 patients were included in the study, including 121 cases with visceral obesity (VO) and 156 cases without VO. There was no statistically significant disparity in the lymph node dissection count, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, time to first liquid diet, early postoperative complications, histopathologic specimen indices (quality of TME and CRM involvement rate), and or the rate of conversion to open surgery between VO and non-VO group (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, the group of individuals with VO experienced a lengthier duration of surgery (P < 0.001) and a delayed time until the first passage of flatus (P < 0.001) in comparison to the group without VO. The study suggests that VO does not significantly impact early complications or the quality of surgical outcomes in mid and low rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery. The findings support the continued use of RS as an optimal strategy for technically demanding patients.

The robotic NICE procedure outperforms conventional laparoscopic extracorporeal-assisted colorectal resection: results of a matched cohort analysis

INTRODUCTION

We introduced the robotic NICE procedure for left-sided colorectal resection in 2018 in which the entire procedure is performed without loss of pneumoperitoneum and without an abdominal wall incision by performing natural orifice-assisted transrectal extraction of the specimen and intracorporeal anastomosis. We compare the results of the NICE procedure versus conventional laparoscopic resection, which was our standard approach prior to 2018.

METHODS

A matched pair case-control study compared patients following the NICE procedure versus those who underwent laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resection with conventional extracorporeal-assisted technique. Cases were performed at an Academic Medical Center and recorded in a prospective database to analyze perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

From a total cohort of 352 patients, 83 were matched in each group. When comparing the NICE procedure vs. the Extracorporeal-Assisted laparoscopic group, there were no significant differences in age (58.5 vs. 59.3 years old), sex (47 vs. 42 Female), body mass index (27.4 vs. 27.5 kg/m2), ASA, diagnosis, or type of surgery. Operative time (198.8 vs. 197.7 min), blood loss (56.0 vs. 53.3 ml), intraoperative complications (0.0% vs. 0.0%), and conversion rates (0.0% vs. 0.0%) were similar in both groups. The NICE procedure was associated with significantly earlier return of bowel function (40.7 vs. 23.6 h), shorter length of stay (3.1 vs. 2.2 days), and lower total opioid use (94.6 vs. 70.5 morphine milligram equivalents). Overall, there were no differences in postoperative abscess formation, complications, readmission, or reoperation rates.

CONCLUSION

When compared to conventional laparoscopic resection, the NICE procedure is associated with short-term benefits including earlier recovery and less opioid use without increased operative time or increased risk of complications. Multicenter studies are recommended to validate benefits and limitations of this technique.

Robotic Proctectomy: Beyond the Initial Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Multiple authors have described an initial learning curve (LC) for robotic proctectomy (RP), but there is scant literature regarding continued technical progression beyond this stage. Total operating time is the most commonly used metric to measure proficiency. Our goal was to examine RP experience after the initial LC looking for evidence of further technical progression.

METHODS

We reviewed our robotic surgery database for a single surgeon during operations 100 through 550 to identify 83 RPs for tumor. These were divided into quartiles by series order, indicating surgeon experience level over time. Demographics and outcomes were compared among the groups. We defined percent console time (PCT) as a new metric. PCT was defined as console time divided by total operative time (TOT).

RESULTS

From March 2014 through March 2019, 450 robotic colorectal operations were performed, including 83 RPs for polyp or cancer. No significant differences were found among the quartiles in regard to demographics, tumor features, hospital stay, conversions, or readmissions. As experience was gained, there were significant increases in intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), TOT, and PCT. Complications decreased with experience. Number of lymph nodes in the specimen increased. On multivariate analysis, later experience group, body mass index ≥30, and ICA were associated with increased PCT.

DISCUSSION

ICA became a routine part of RP after the initial LC, with increases in TOT and PCT. Number of lymph nodes increased and number and severity of complications decreased with experience. Increased PCT may indicate increased expertise during RP.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in rectal cancer: a single-center short-term analysis based on the learning curve

As a novel procedure becomes more and more used, knowledge about its learning curve and its impact on outcomes is useful for future implementations. Our aim is (i) to identify the phases of the robotic rectal surgery learning process and assess the safety and oncological outcomes during that period, (ii) to compare the robotic rectal surgery learning phases outcomes with laparoscopic rectal resections performed before the implementation of the robotic surgery program. We performed a retrospective study, based on a prospectively maintained database, with methodological quality assessment by STROBE checklist. All the procedures were performed by the same two surgeons. A total of 157 robotic rectal resections from June 2018 to January 2022 and 97 laparoscopic rectal resections from January 2018 to July 2019 were included. The learning phase was completed at case 26 for surgeon A, 36 for surgeon B, and 60 for the center (both A & B). There were no differences in histopathological results or postoperative complications between phases, achieving the same ratio of mesorectal quality, circumferential and distal resection margins as the laparoscopic approach. A transitory increase of major complications and anastomotic leakage could occur once overcoming the learning phase, secondary to the progressive complexity of cases. Robotic rectal cancer surgery learning curve phases in experienced laparoscopic surgeons was completed after 25-35 cases. Implementation of a robotic rectal surgery program is safe in oncologic terms, morbidity, mortality and length of stay.

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

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

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Paediatric robotic surgery: a narrative review

The benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with traditional open surgery, including reduced postoperative pain and a reduced length of stay, are well recognised. A significant barrier for MIS in paediatric populations has been the technical challenge posed by laparoscopic surgery in small working spaces, where rigid instruments and restrictive working angles act as barriers to safe dissection. Thus, open surgery remains commonplace in paediatrics, particularly for complex major surgery and for surgical oncology. Robotic surgical platforms have been designed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery by offering a stable 3-dimensional view, improved ergonomics and greater range of motion. Such advantages may be particularly beneficial in paediatric surgery by empowering the surgeon to perform MIS in the smaller working spaces found in children, particularly in cases that may demand intracorporeal suturing and anastomosis. However, some reservations have been raised regarding the utilisation of robotic platforms in children, including elevated cost, an increased operative time and a lack of dedicated paediatric equipment. This article aims to review the current role of robotics within the field of paediatric surgery.

Success rates and outcomes of the robotic NICE procedure across complicated and uncomplicated diverticulitis cases

INTRODUCTION

We implemented the NICE procedure as a robotic natural orifice colorectal resection utilizing the rectum to extract the specimen and complete an intracorporal anastomosis for diverticulitis in 2018. Although complicated diverticulitis is associated with higher rates of conversion and post-operative morbidity, we hypothesized that the stepwise approach of the NICE procedure can be equally successful in this cohort. We aimed to compare feasibility and outcomes of the NICE procedure for uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting with diverticulitis who underwent robotic NICE procedure from May 2018 through June 2021 were included. Cases were stratified into uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis (fistula, abscess, or stricture). Demographic, clinical, disease, intervention, and outcomes data were analyzed. The main outcome measures were return of bowel function, length of stay, opioid consumption, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Of a total of 190 patients, those presenting with uncomplicated diverticulitis (53.2%) were compared to those with complicated diverticulitis (47.8%). Uncomplicated diverticulitis had fewer low anterior resections (15.8% vs 49.4%; p < 0.001) and shorter median operative time (186 vs 220 min; p < 0.001). Both cohorts had equal rates of successful intracorporeal anastomosis (100%) and successful transrectal extraction (100% vs 98.9%; p = 0.285). Both cohorts had similar return of bowel function (median 21 h and 18.5; p = 0.149), median length of hospital stay (2 days, p = 0.015) and mean total opioid use (68.4 MME vs 67.3; p = 0.91). There were also no significant differences in overall postoperative complication rate over a 30-day time period (8.9% vs 12.5%; p = 0.44), readmission (6.9% vs 5.6%; p = 0.578) and reoperation (3% vs 4.5%; p = 0.578).

CONCLUSION

Despite being inherently more complex and technically challenging, complicated diverticulitis patients have similar success rates and post-operative outcomes compared to uncomplicated diverticulitis patients when undergoing the NICE procedure. These results implicate the benefits of robotic natural orifice techniques may be even more pronounced in complicated diverticulitis patients.

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).

The success rate of robotic natural orifice intracorporeal anastomosis and transrectal extraction (NICE procedure) in a large cohort of consecutive unselected patients

BACKGROUND

The Robotic NICE procedure is a total intracorporeal natural orifice approach in which specimen extraction and anastomosis is accomplished without an abdominal wall incision other than the port sites themselves. We aim to present the success rate of the NICE procedure in a large cohort of unselected consecutive patients presenting with colorectal disease using a stepwise and reproducible robotic approach.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who presented with benign or malignant disease requiring left-sided colorectal resection and anastomosis between May 2018 and June 2021 were evaluated. Data abstracted included demographic, clinical data, disease features, intervention data, and outcomes data. The main outcome was success rate of Intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), transrectal extraction of specimen (TRSE), and conversion rate.

RESULTS

A total of 306 patients underwent NICE procedure. Diverticulitis was the main diagnosis (64%) followed by colorectal neoplasm (27%). Median operative time was 219 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 50 ml. ICA was achieved in all cases (100%). TRSE was successfully achieved in 95.4% of cases. In 14 patients (4.6%), an abdominal incision was required due to inability to extract a bulky specimen through the rectum. There overall postoperative complications rate was 12.4%. Eight patients (2.6%) experienced postoperative ileus. There were no superficial or deep surgical site infection (SSI). Eleven patients (3.6%) developed organ SSI space including 5 patients with intra-abdominal abscess and 4 patients with anastomotic leak. There was one mortality (0.3%) due to toxic megacolon from resistant Clostridium difficile. The 30-day reoperation rate was 2.9% (n = 9) including six patients presenting with organ space SSI and three patients with postoperative obstruction at the diverting loop ileostomy site.

CONCLUSION

The NICE procedure is associated with a very high success rate for both intracorporeal anastomosis and transrectal specimen extraction in a large cohort of unselected patients.

Surgical outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open low anterior resection after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer

PURPOSE

We investigated the surgical outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for lower rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (pCRT).

METHODS

A total of 175 patients with lower rectal cancer who underwent LAR after pCRT between 2005 and 2020 were stratified into open (OS, n = 65), laparoscopic (LS, n = 64), and robotic surgery (RS, n = 46) groups. We compared the clinical, surgical, and pathological results among the three groups.

RESULTS

The RS and LS groups had less blood loss than the OS group (p < 0.0001). The operating time in the RS group was longer than in the LS and OS groups (p < 0.0001). The RS group had a significantly longer mean distal margin than the LS and OS groups (25.4 mm vs. 20.7 mm and 20.3 mm, respectively; p = 0.026). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complication rate among the groups. The local recurrence rate in the RS group was comparable to those in the LS and OS groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic LAR after pCRT was performed safely for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer. It provided a longer distal margin and equivalent local control rates.

Learning curve and surgical outcome of robotic assisted colorectal surgery with ERAS program

This study analyzed learning curve and the surgical outcome of robotic assisted colorectal surgery with ERAS program. The study results serve as a reference for future robotic colorectal surgeon who applied ERAS in clinical practice. This was a retrospective case-control study to analyze the learning curve of 141 robotic assisted colorectal surgery (RAS) by Da Vinci Xi (Xi) system and compare the surgical outcomes with 147 conventional laparoscopic (LSC) surgery in the same team. Evaluation for maturation was performed by operation time and the CUSUM plot. Patients were recruited from 1st February 2019 to 9th January 2022; follow-up was conducted at 30 days, and the final follow-up was conducted on 9th February 2022. It both took 31 cases for colon and rectal robotic surgeries to reach the maturation phase. Teamwork maturation was achieved after 60 cases. In the maturation stage, RAS required a longer operation time (mean: colon: 249.5 ± 46.5 vs. 190.3 ± 57.3 p < 0.001; rectum 314.9 ± 59.6 vs. 223.6 ± 63.5 p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, robotic surgery with ERAS program resulted in significant shorter length of hospital stay (mean: colon: 5.5 ± 4.5 vs. 10.0 ± 11.9, p < 0.001; rectum: 5.4 ± 3.5 vs. 10.1 ± 7.0, p < 0.001), lower minor complication rate (colon: 6.0% vs 20.0%, p = 0.074 ; rectum: 11.1% vs 33.3%, p = 0.102), and no significant different major complication rate (colon: 2.0% vs 6.0%, p = 0.617; rectum: 7.4% cs 7.4%, p = 1.0) to conventional LSC. Learning curve for robotic assisted colorectal surgery takes 31 cases. Robotic surgery with ERAS program brings significant faster recovery and fewer complication rate compared to laparoscopy in colorectal surgery.

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

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

National differences in implementation of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer and the influence on short-term outcomes

Background

The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new surgical techniques and the effect on postoperative outcomes are important for quality assurance, can show potential areas for country-specific improvement, and might be illustrative and supportive for similar implementation programs in other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate differences in patient selection, applied techniques, and results of minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer between the Netherlands and Sweden.

Methods

Patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for T1-3 colon or rectal cancer (2012–2018) registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit or Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry were included. Time trends in the application of MIS were determined. Outcomes were compared for time periods with a similar level of MIS implementation (Netherlands 2012–2013 versus Sweden 2017–2018). Multilevel analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse short-term outcomes.

Results

A total of 46,095 Dutch and 8,819 Swedish patients undergoing MIS for colorectal cancer were included. In Sweden, MIS implementation was approximately 5 years later than in the Netherlands, with more robotic surgery and lower volumes per hospital. Although conversion rates were higher in Sweden, oncological and surgical outcomes were comparable. MIS in the Netherlands for the years 2012–2013 resulted in a higher reoperation rate for colon cancer and a higher readmission rate but lower non-surgical complication rates for rectal cancer if compared with MIS in Sweden during 2017–2018.

Conclusion

This study showed that the implementation of MIS for colorectal cancer occurred later in Sweden than the Netherlands, with comparable outcomes despite lower volumes. Our study demonstrates that new surgical techniques can be implemented at a national level in a controlled and safe way, with thorough quality assurance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08974-1.

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.

Impact of the distal resection margin on local recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and rectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer

We aimed to evaluate whether a short distal resection margin (< 1 cm) was associated with local recurrence in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by curative surgery were divided into two groups based on the distal resection margin (≥ 1 cm and < 1 cm). In total, 507 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up duration was 48.9 months. The 3-year local recurrence rates were 2% and 8% in the ≥ 1 cm and < 1 cm groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that a distal resection margin of < 1 cm was a significant risk factor for local recurrence (P = 0.008). Subgroup analysis revealed that a distal resection margin of < 1 cm was not an independent risk factor for local recurrence in the ypT0-1 group. However, among patients with tumor stages ypT2-4, the cumulative 3-year incidences of local recurrence were 2.3% and 9.8% in the ≥ 1 cm and < 1 cm groups, respectively (P = 0.01). A distal resection margin of < 1 cm might influence local recurrence rates in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiotherapy, especially in patients with tumor stages ypT2-4.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Resection of low rectal adenocarcinoma can be challenging in the narrow pelvis of male patients. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to offer technical advantages for distal rectal tumours, and robotic-assisted transabdominal TME (rTME) was introduced in effort to improve operative precision and ergonomics. However, no study has comprehensively compared these approaches. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare postoperative short-term outcomes in rTME and TaTME.

METHODS

A systematic online search (1974-July 2020) of MEDLINE, Embase, web of science and google scholar was conducted for trials, prospective or retrospective studies involving rTME, or TaTME for rectal cancer. Outcome variables included: hospital stay; operation duration, blood loss; resection margins; proportion of histologically complete resected specimens; lymph nodes; overall complications; anastomotic leak, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles met the inclusion criteria, including 37 studies (3835 patients) assessing rTME resection, 23 studies (1326 patients) involving TaTME and 2 comparing both (165 patients). Operating time was longer in rTME (309.2 min, 95% CI 285.5-332.8) than in TaTME studies (256.2 min, 95% CI 231.5-280.9) (p = 0.002). rTME resected specimens had a larger distal resection margin (2.62 cm, 95% CI 2.35-2.88) than in TaTME studies (2.10 cm, 95% CI 1.83-2.36) (p = 0.007). Other outcome variables did not significantly differ between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

rTME provides similar pathological and short-term outcomes to TaTME and both are reasonable surgical approaches for patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. To definitively answer the question of the optimal TME technique, we suggest a prospective trial comparing both techniques assessing long-term survival as a primary outcome.

Role of minimally invasive techniques in gastrointestinal surgery: Current status and future perspectives

In recent years, the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer has remained high. Currently, surgical resection is still the most effective method for treating gastrointestinal cancer. Traditionally, radical surgery depends on open surgery. However, traditional open surgery inflicts great trauma and is associated with a slow recovery. Minimally invasive surgery, which aims to reduce postoperative complications and accelerate postoperative recovery, has been rapidly developed in the last two decades; it is increasingly used in the field of gastrointestinal surgery and widely used in early-stage gastrointestinal cancer. Nevertheless, many operations for gastrointestinal cancer treatment are still performed by open surgery. One reason for this may be the challenges of minimally invasive technology, especially when operating in narrow spaces, such as within the pelvis or near the upper edge of the pancreas. Moreover, some of the current literature has questioned oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Overall, the current evidence suggests that minimally invasive techniques are safe and feasible in gastrointestinal cancer surgery, but most of the studies published in this field are retrospective studies and case-matched studies. Large-scale randomized prospective studies are needed to further support the application of minimally invasive surgery. In this review, we summarize several common minimally invasive methods used to treat gastrointestinal cancer and discuss the advances in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer in detail.

Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Resection for Sigmoid and Rectal Cancer: Analysis of 109 Patients From a Single Center in China

Background: Robotic colorectal surgery has been increasingly performed in recent years. The safety and feasibility of its application has also been demonstrated worldwide.However, limited studies have presented clinical data for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving robotic surgery in China. The aim of this study is to present short-term clinical outcomes of robotic surgery and further confirm its safety and feasibility in Chinese CRC patients.

Methods: The clinical data of 109 consecutive CRC patients who received robotic surgery at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between June 2016 and May 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics,tumor traits, treatment details, complications, pathological details, and survival status were evaluated.

Results: Among the 109 patients, 35 (32.1%) had sigmoid cancer, and 74 (67.9%) had rectal cancer. Thirty-seven (33.9%) patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Ten (9.2%) patients underwent sigmoidectomy, 38 (34.9%) underwent high anterior resection (HAR), 45 (41.3%) underwent low anterior resection (LAR), and 16 (14.7%) underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR). The median surgical procedure time was 270 min (range 120–465 min). Pathologically complete resection was achieved in all patients. There was no postoperative mortality. Complications occurred in 11 (10.1%) patients, including 3 (2.8%) anastomotic leakage, 1 (0.9%) anastomotic bleeding, 1 (0.9%) pelvic hemorrhage, 4 (3.7%) intestinal obstruction, 2 (1.8%) chylous leakage, and 1 (0.9%) delayed wound union. At a median follow-up of 17 months (range 1–37 months), 1 (0.9%) patient developed local recurrence and 5 (4.6%) developed distant metastasis, with one death due to disease progression.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that robotic surgery is technically feasible and safe for Chinese CRC patients, especially for rectal cancer patients who received neoadjuvant treatment. A robotic laparoscope with large magnification showed a clear surgical space for pelvic autonomic nerve preservation in cases of mesorectal edema.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study

The current gold standard surgical treatment for right colonic malignancy is the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations which can be overcome by robotic surgery. The benefits of robotics for rectal cancer are widely accepted but its use for right hemicolectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) and LRH in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with early oncological outcomes of patients who underwent RRH and LRH with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 70 patients (35 RRH, 35 LRH) were identified over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, surgical site infection or lengths of stay were demonstrated. Surgical specimen quality in both groups was favourable. The mean duration of surgery was longer in RRH (p <  < 0.00001). A statistically significant proportion of RRH patients had a higher BMI and ASA grade. The results demonstrate that RRH is safe and feasible when compared to LRH, with no statistical difference in postoperative morbidity, mortality and early oncological outcomes. A difference was noted in operating time, however was influenced by training residents in docking the robot and a technically challenging cohort of patients. Operative time has shortened with further experience. Incorporating an intracorporeal anastomosis technique in RRH offers the potential to improve outcomes compared to LRH.

Prognostic Impact of Lateral Pelvic Node Dissection on the Survival of Patients in Low Rectal Cancer Subgroups Based on Lymph Node Size

BACKGROUND

Lateral pelvic node (LPN) dissection (LPND) is considered a promising technique for treating low rectal cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of its prognostic value. Using centrally reviewed preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance (MR) images, this study aimed to find the patient population who has benefited from LPND.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

MR images of patients from 69 institutes with stage II-III low rectal cancer were reviewed by experienced radiologists. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and short-term outcomes were measured.

RESULTS

In total, 731 preoperative MR images were reviewed (excluding patients with short-axis LPN ≥ 10 mm). Of these, 322 underwent total mesorectum excision (TME) without LPND (non-LPND group), and 409 underwent TME with LPND (LPND group). Preoperative treatment was performed for 40% and 25% of patients in the non-LPND and LPND groups, respectively. The incidence of postoperative complications was higher in the LPND group (44.5%) than in the non-LPND group (33.2%; P = 0.002). Among patients with LPNs < 5 mm, OS and RFS curves were not significantly different between the groups. Among patients with LPNs ≥ 5 mm, the LPND group had significantly higher 5-year OS and RFS than the non-LPND group (OS: 81.9% versus 67.3%; RFS: 69.4% versus 51.6%). On multivariate analysis of LPN ≥ 5 mm cases, LPND was independently associated with RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high incidence of postoperative complications, this study showed the prognostic impact of LPND on low rectal cancer patients with LPNs (≥ 5 mm, < 10 mm short axis) measured by experienced radiologists. Trial registration UMIN-ID: UMIN000013919.

Robot Surgery Shows Similar Long-term Oncologic Outcomes as Laparoscopic Surgery for Mid/Lower Rectal Cancer but Is Beneficial to ypT3/4 After Preoperative Chemoradiation

BACKGROUND

The long-term oncologic efficacy of robotic surgery for patients with rectal cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate survival outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision for mid/low rectal cancer compared with those of laparoscopic surgery.

DESIGN

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis.

SETTING

The data of a tertiary academic institution was reviewed.

PATIENTS

A total of 705 patients underwent laparoscopic (n = 415) or robotic (n = 118) low anterior resection for stage I to III mid/low rectal cancer. A total of 118 patients in each group were selected from the original data set by using propensity score matching.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were 5-year disease-free survival, distant recurrence, and local recurrence.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were balanced in terms of basic characteristics, perioperative treatment, and pathological stage. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 80.5% in the laparoscopic group and 87.6% in the robotic group (p = 0.118). The 5-year distant recurrence rate and local recurrence rate were 19.0% and 4.2% in the laparoscopic group and 10.0% and 3.7% in the robotic group (p = 0.048 and p = 0.846). In a subgroup of patients who received preoperative chemoradiation and had ypT3/4 tumors, the 5-year distant recurrence and local recurrence rates were 44.8% and 5.0% in the laparoscopic group and 9.8% and 9.8% in the robotic group (p = 0.014 and p = 0.597).

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective nature of the study, potential selection bias with distinct demographics between the groups, and relatively small number of cases are limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for mid/low rectal cancer shows similar long-term oncologic outcomes with laparoscopic surgery but is beneficial to a certain group of patients with advanced rectal cancer with poor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Additional studies are required to confirm our results. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B546.

LA CIRUGA ROBTICA MUESTRA RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS A LARGO PLAZO SIMILARES A LA CIRUGA LAPAROSCPICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO MEDIO / BAJO, PERO ES VENTAJOSA EN CASOS YPT POSTQUIMIORADIOTERAPIA PREOPERATORIA

ANTECEDENTES:Se desconoce la eficacia oncológica a largo plazo de la cirugía robótica en pacientes con cáncer de recto.OBJETIVO:La finalidad de nuestro estudio fue el investigar los resultados de supervivencia de la escisión mesorrectal total robótica en casos de cáncer de recto medio / bajo en comparación con los de la cirugía laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Realizamos un análisis retrospectivo mono-céntrico.AJUSTE:Se revisaron los datos de una institución académica terciaria.PACIENTES:705 pacientes fueron sometidos a resección anterior baja laparoscópica (n = 415) o robótica (n = 118) para cáncer de recto medio / bajo en estadio I-III. Se seleccionó un total de 118 pacientes en cada grupo del conjunto de datos original utilizando el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión.RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:Éstos fueron, la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años, la recurrencia a distancia y la recurrencia local.RESULTADOS:Los dos grupos estaban equilibrados en cuanto a características básicas, tratamiento péri-operatorio y estadío patológico. La tasa de sobrevida libre de enfermedad a 5 años fue del 80,5% en el grupo laparoscópico y del 87,6% en el grupo robótico (p = 0,118). La tasa de recurrencia a distancia a 5 años y la tasa de recurrencia local fueron 19,0% y 4,2% en el grupo laparoscópico y 10,0% y 3,7% en el grupo robótico, respectivamente (p = 0,048 y p= 0,846). En el subgrupo de pacientes que recibieron quimio-radioterapia pré-operatoria y tenían tumores ypT3-4, las tasas de recidiva a distancia a 5 años y recidiva local fueron 44,8% y 5,0% en el grupo laparoscópico y 9,8% y 9,8% en el grupo robótico, respectivamente (p = 0.014 y p = 0.597).LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva del estudio, el posible sesgo en la selección con datos demográficos distintos entre los grupos y un número relativamente pequeño de casos son limitaciones importantes.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía robótica para el cáncer de recto medio / bajo muestra resultados oncológicos a largo plazo similares con la cirugía laparoscópica, pero es mas beneficiosa en ciertos grupos de cáncer de recto avanzado con mala respuesta a la quimio-radioterapia neoadyuvante. Se requieren más estudios para confirmar nuestros resultados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B546.).

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

AIMS

This study analyzed the oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

METHODS

We enrolled 109 consecutive patients with stage II-III rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted TME after neoadjuvant CCRT at one hospital between July 2013 and June 2018.

RESULTS

All 109 patients underwent preoperative CCRT. Of them, 37 (33.9%) achieved a pathologic complete response, and 29 (26.6%) experienced relapse, with local recurrence in 9 (8.3%) and distant metastasis in 20 (18.3%). R0 resection was performed in 104 (95.7%) patients; however, 7 (6.7%) of them developed local recurrence and 17 (16.3%) developed distant metastasis. Over a median follow-up of 42 months, the 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 73.4% and 87.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted TME after neoadjuvant CCRT is safe and effective for treating patients with stage II-III rectal cancer in one institution with acceptable short-term oncological outcomes. It may be a therapeutic alternative to salvage surgery for T4 tumors invading adjacent organs, such as the bladder, prostate, and uterus.

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

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

The impact of body mass index on outcomes in robotic colorectal surgery: a single-centre experience

Obesity is an independent risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality in laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). The technological advantages of robotic colorectal surgery (RCRS) may allow surgeons to overcome the limitations of LCRS in obese patients, but it is largely unknown if this translates to superior outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative, postoperative and short-term oncological outcomes in obese (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) and non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m²) patients undergoing RCRS in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with short-term oncological outcomes of obese and non-obese patients that underwent RCRS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 107 patients (34 obese, 73 non-obese) underwent RCRS over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leak or length of inpatient stay were demonstrated. Obese patients had a significantly higher rate of surgical site infection (SSI) (p < 0.0001). Short-term oncological outcomes in both groups were favourable. There was no statistically significant difference in median duration of surgery between the two cohorts. The results demonstrate that obese patients undergoing RCRS in this institution experience similar outcomes to non-obese patients. These results suggest that RCRS is safe and feasible in obese patients and may be superior to LCRS in this cohort, where the literature suggests a higher complication rate compared to non-obese patients. The inherent advantages of robotic surgical platforms, such as improved visualisation, dexterity and ergonomics likely contribute to the improved outcomes in this challenging patient population.

Feasibility of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although surgical resection is the main treatment for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical protocol for elderly patients with rectal cancer remains controversial. This study evaluated the feasibility of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 156 patients aged 28-93 years diagnosed with Stage I-III rectal cancer, who underwent robot-assisted surgery between May 2013 and December 2018 at a single institution.

RESULTS

In total, 156 patients with rectal cancer, including 126 non-elderly (aged < 70 years) and 30 elderly (aged ≥70 years) patients, who underwent robot-assisted surgery were recruited. Between the patient groups, the post-operative length of hospital stay did not differ statistically significantly (P = 0.084). The incidence of overall post-operative complications was statistically significantly lower in the elderly group (P = 0.002). The disease-free and overall survival did not differ statistically significantly between the two groups (P = 0.719 and 0.390, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer was well tolerated by elderly patients, with similar results to the non-elderly patients. Oncological outcomes and survival did not depend on patient age, suggesting that robot-assisted surgery is a feasible surgical modality for treating operable rectal cancer and leads to age-independent post-operative outcomes in elderly patients.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of the low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery with robotic surgery in patients with rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Background/aim

The aim of this study is to compare clinical and oncologic outcomes of the high and low ligation techniques of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) in rectal cancer patients treated with robotic surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

Materials and methods

In this retrospective study, 77 patients with T3/T4-node negative rectal cancer with tumor penetration through the muscle wall (Stage 2) or node positive disease without distant metastases (Stage 3) who were treated electively with robotic surgical resection following nCRT at a single institution between January 2014 and January 2018 were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups (38 patients were included in the low ligation group and 39 patients in the high ligation group).

Results

There was no statistical difference between the high ligation group and low ligation group in univariate analysis for 2-year overall survival and disease-free survival (OR = 1.146; 95% CI = 0.274 to 4.797; P = 0.950, and OR = 1.141; 95% CI = 0.564 to 2.308; P = 0.713, respectively). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the mean number of harvested lymph nodes and mean number of metastatic lymph nodes (P = 0.980 and P = 0.124, respectively). Anastomosis stricture was observed significantly less frequently in the low ligation group versus the high ligation group (2.6% and 28.2%, respectively) (P = 0.002). Also, the difference for the median length of hospital stay for the high and low ligation groups was statistically significant in favor of the low ligation group (P = 0.011).

Conclusion

In robotic rectal surgery, the low ligation technique of the IMA can reduce the rate of anastomosis stricture and provide similar oncological results as the high ligation technique.

Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The application of robotic surgery for rectal cancer is increasing steadily. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare pathologic outcomes among patients with rectal cancer who underwent open rectal surgery (ORS) versus robotic rectal surgery (RRS).

Methods

We systematically searched the literature of EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) comparing ORS with RRS.

Results

Fourteen nRCTs, including 2711 patients met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.16, P = 0.13), number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD: −0.31, 95% CI, −2.16 to 1.53, P = 0.74), complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rates (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.78, P = 0.83) and the length of distal resection margins (DRM) (WMD: −0.01, 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.25, P = 0.96) did not differ significantly between the RRS and ORS groups.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence, robotic resection for rectal cancer provided equivalent pathological outcomes to ORS in terms of CRM positivity, number of harvested lymph nodes and complete TME rates and DRM.

Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute

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

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Hype or Hope? (Indian Experience)

The primary goal to achieve cure in oncology is to reduce recurrence, maximize disease-free survival, maintain function, and optimize quality of life. Surgery remains the mainstay treatment modality in rectal cancer. The current trend is to perform least invasive method of doing complex surgeries while not compromising in the oncological of functional outcomes of patients. Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery entails removal of the rectum with its fascia as an intact unit while preserving surrounding vital structures. The procedure is technically challenging because of the narrow and deep pelvic cavity housing the rectum encased by fatty lymph vascular tissue within the perirectal fascia, distally the anal sphincter complex, and an intimate surrounded by vital structures like ureter, vessels, and nerves. Robotic technology enables overcoming these difficulties caused by complex pelvic anatomy. This system can facilitate better preservation of the pelvic autonomic nerve and thereby achieve favorable postoperative sexual and voiding functions after rectal cancer surgery. The nerve-preserving TME technique includes identification and preservation of the superior hypogastric plexus nerve, bilateral hypogastric nerves, pelvic plexus, and neurovascular bundles.

Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit

BACKGROUND

Safety and feasibility of robotic colorectal surgery has been reported as increasing over the last decade. However safe implementation and adaptation of such a programme with comparable morbidities and acceptable oncological outcomes remains a challenge in a busy tertiary unit. We present our experience of implementation and adaptation of a structured robotic colorectal programme in a high-volume center in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Two colorectal surgeons underwent a structured robotic colorectal training programme consisting of time on simulation console, dry and wet laboratory courses, case observation, and initial mentoring. Data were collected on consecutive robotic colorectal cancer resections over a period of 12 months and compared with colorectal cancer resections data of the same surgeons' record prior to the adaptation of the new technique. Patient demographics including age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), Clavien-Dindo grading, previous abdominal surgeries, and BMI were included. Short-term outcomes including conversion to open, length of stay, return to theatre, 30- and 90-days mortality, blood loss, and post-operative analgesia were recorded. Tumour site, TNM staging, diverting stoma, neo-adjuvant therapy, total mesorectal excision (TME) grading and positive resection margins (R1) were compared. p values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ninety colorectal cancer resections were performed with curative intent from June 2018 to June 2020. Thirty robotic colorectal cancer resections (RCcR) were performed after adaption of programme and were compared with 60 non-robotic colorectal cancer resections (N-RCcR) prior to implementation of technique. There was no conversion in the RCcR group; however, in N-RCcR group, five had open resection from start and the rest had laparoscopic surgery. In laparoscopic group, there were six (10.9%) conversions to open (two adhesions, three multi-visceral involvements, one intra-operative bleed). Male-to-female ratio was 20:09 in RCcR group and 33:20 in N-RCcR groups. No significant differences in gender (p = 0.5), median age (p = 0.47), BMI (p = 0.64) and ASA scores (p = 0.72) were present in either groups. Patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable aside from an increased proportion of rectal and sigmoid cancers in RCcR group. Mean operating time, and returns to theaters were comparable in both groups. Complications were fewer in RCcR group as compared to N-RCcR (16.6% vs 25%). RCcR group patients have reduced length of stay (5 days vs 7 days) but this is not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss and conversion to open surgery was significantly lesser in the robotic group (p < 0.01). The oncological outcomes from surgery including TNM, resection margin status, lymph node yield and circumferential resection margin (for rectal cancers) were all comparable. There was no 30-day mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

Implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery is safe and effective in a busy tertiary center through a structured training programme with comparable short-term survival and oncological outcomes during learning curve.

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.

Oncological Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery With High Dissection and Selective Ligation Technique for Sigmoid Colon and Rectal Cancer

Background: Curative resection of sigmoid colon and rectal cancer includes "high tie" of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). However, IMA ligation compromises blood flow to the anastomosis, which may increase the complication rate. We present preliminary experiences of operative and oncologic outcomes of patients with rectal or sigmoid colon cancer who underwent robotic surgery employing the high dissection and selective ligation technique. Methods: Over May 2013 to April 2017, 113 stage I-III rectal or sigmoid colon cancer patients underwent robotic surgery with the single-docking technique at one institution. We performed D3 lymph node dissection and low-tie ligation of the IMA (i.e., high dissection and selective ligation technique). Clinicopathological features, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Sphincter preservation rate was 96.3% in rectal cancer patients. Median number of harvested lymph nodes was 12. Apical nodes were pathologically harvested in 84 (82.4%) patients. R0 resection was performed in 108 (95.6%) patients. Overall complication rate was 17.7%; but most complications were mild and the patients recovered uneventfully. Estimated 5-year OS was 86.1% and 3-year DFS was 79.6% after median follow-up periods of 49.1 months (range, 5.3-85.3). Conclusions: High dissection of the IMA and selective ligation of the major feeding vessel to the sigmoid colon or rectum can be safely performed using da Vinci Surgical System,yielding favorable clinical, and oncologic outcomes in rectal or sigmoid colon cancer treatment.

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.

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

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

Comparison of clinical efficacy between robotic-laparoscopic excision and traditional laparoscopy for rectal cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery and open surgery are the most commonly consumed surgical techniques in daily living. Considering that in recent years, the situation of choosing laparoscopic surgery and robot-assisted surgery to treat rectal cancer in China is prosperous. Meanwhile, researches lacked in the comparison part between the 2, so we will systematically compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Clinical research literature published before January 2020 in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Science Network, Wan Fang database, Chinese national knowledge infrastructure, and Chinese biomedicine that evaluate the correlation of rectal cancer with Leonardo's robot and traditional laparoscopy, from inception to July 2019. Weighted mean difference and odds ratio were used to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted resection versus conventional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, and the main indicators are operation time, complication rate, conversion rate, blood loss, and length of stay.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

This study will systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, thus providing evidence to the clinical application. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval and participant consent are required, since this study data is based on published literature. The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020172161.

Men With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Sexual Function, Fertility, Medication Safety, and Prostate Cancer

Half of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are men, yet less attention has been focused on their sexual issues despite higher rates of sexual dysfunction and infertility than the general population. Depression and IBD disease activity are the most consistently reported risk factor for sexual dysfunction among men with IBD. Methotrexate and sulfasalazine have been rarely associated with impotence. Sulfasalazine reversibly reduces male fertility. No other medications used in IBD significantly affect fertility in humans. There is no increase in adverse fetal outcomes among offspring of fathers with IBD. Patients with IBD seem to be at a higher risk for prostate cancer; therefore, screening as recommended for high-risk patients should be considered.

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

Safe surgery in the elderly: A review of outcomes following robotic proctectomy from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a cross-sectional study

Background

As our nation's population ages, operating on older and sicker patients occurs more frequently. Robotic operations have been thought to bridge the gap between a laparoscopic and an open approach, especially in more complex cases like proctectomy.

Methods

Our objective was to evaluate the use and outcomes of robotic proctectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer in the elderly. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS; 2006-2013) was performed. All cases were restricted to age 70 years old or greater.

Results

We identified 6740 admissions for rectal cancer including: 5879 open, 666 laparoscopic, and 195 robotic procedures. The median age was 77 years old. The incidence of a robotic proctectomy increased by 39%, while the open approach declined by 6% over the time period studied. Median (interquartile range) length of stay was shorter for robotic procedures at 4.3 (3-7) days, compared to laparoscopic 5.8 (4-8) and open at 6.7 (5-10) days (p < 0.01), while median total hospital charges were greater in the robotic group compared to laparoscopic and open cases ($64,743 vs. $55,813 vs. $50,355, respectively, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the risk of total complications between the different approaches following multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Robotic proctectomy was associated with a shorter LOS, and this may act as a surrogate marker for an overall improvement in adverse events. These results demonstrate that a robotic approach is a safe and feasible option, and should not be discounted solely based on age or comorbidities.

Cost-effectiveness of current approaches in rectal surgery

Colorectal cancer is ranked as the fourth malignant cause of mortality. With the tremendous revolution in the modern medical techniques, minimally invasive approaches have been incorporated into rectal surgery. The effectiveness of surgical procedures is usually measured by a combination of qualitative (quality of life) and quantitative (years of life) measures, while the costs should reflect the use of different resources that were involved in delivering the medical care and they are affected by several factors, including length of hospital stay. In this review, we provide an insight into the cost-effectiveness of the different types of rectal surgeries in order to present a systematic approach for future preferences. A comprehensive literature review using Medline (via PUBMED), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (via clinical trial.org) was performed. Minimally invasive rectal surgeries have considerable cost-effective properties that outweigh those of the open techniques in terms of earlier return to bowel function, lower morbidity rates, reduced pain, shorter length of hospital stay and the overall patients’ quality of life although there was no difference in long-term oncological and survival outcomes. The paucity of currently available long-term oncologic, quality of life, and economic outcomes may limit an adequate comparison of robotic surgeries to other surgical techniques. It is therefore recommended to conduct focused studies to help balance the cost/benefit factors along with other technical considerations aimed at reducing the cost of robotic systems with subsequent improvement of their cost-effectiveness.

•

Colorectal cancer is the fourth cause of mortality. Minimally invasive surgery is now considered the standard of care.

•

Cost of minimally invasive surgery is offset by the better outcomes due to less complications and shorter hospital stay.

•

TaTME requires two working teams and two sets of instruments which increases the total cost.

•

Robotic surgery in obese patients demonstrated superior results when it comes to hospital stay and overall complications.

•

Well conducted clinical trials looking at cost effectiveness of new technologies in colorectal surgery are needed.

Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal tumour surgery: a cohort study

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgery in terms of perioperative data, short-term outcome and compliance to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol.

METHOD

In this cohort study, 224 patients scheduled for rectal resection for cancer or adenoma between January 2011 and January 2017 were evaluated. In the first time period (12 January 2011 to 23 April 2014), 47 (46%) of 102 patients had laparoscopic surgery. In the second time period (24 April 2014 to 30 January 2017), 72 (59%) of 122 patients had robotic surgery. Perioperative data and short-term outcome were collected from the ERAS database and patient charts. Data obtained from laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the two time periods studied were compared. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes were compliance to the ERAS protocol, difference in postoperative complications and conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

Compliance to the ERAS protocol was 81.1% in the robotic group and 83.4% in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.890). Robotic surgery was associated with shorter median LOS (3 days vs 7 days, P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (11.1% vs 34.0%, P = 0.002), lower rate of postoperative complications (25% vs 49%, P < 0.01) and longer duration of surgery (5.8 h vs 4.5 h, P < 0.001). The differences remained after multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was associated with shorter LOS, lower conversion rates and fewer postoperative complications compared with laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery may add benefits to the ERAS protocol.

Systematic review analysis of robotic and transanal approaches in TME surgery- A systematic review of the current literature in regard to challenges in rectal cancer surgery

Several patients' and pathological characteristics in rectal surgery can significantly complicate surgical loco regional tumor clearance. The main factors are obesity, short tumor distance from anal verge, bulky tumors, and narrow pelvis, which have been shown to be associated to poor surgical results in open and laparoscopic approaches. Minimally invasive surgery has the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity with equivalent short- and long-term oncological outcomes compared to conventional open approach. Achilles' heel of laparoscopic approaches is conversion to open surgery. High risk for conversion is evident for patients with bulky and low tumors as well as male gender and narrow pelvis. Hence, patient's characteristics represent challenges in rectal cancer surgery especially in minimally invasive approaches. The available surgical techniques increased remarkably with recently developed and implemented improvements of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. The controversial discussions about sense and purpose of these novel approaches are still ongoing in the literature. Herein, we evaluate, if latest technical advances like transanal approach or robotic assisted surgery have the potential to overcome known challenges and pitfalls in rectal cancer surgery in demanding surgical cases and highlight the role of current minimally invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery.