Does robotic rectal cancer surgery improve the results of experienced laparoscopic surgeons? An observational single institution study comparing 168 robotic assisted with 184 laparoscopic rectal resections

Implementation of a robotic surgical practice in inflammatory bowel disease

Robotics adoption has increased in colorectal surgery. While there are well-established advantages and standardised techniques for cancer patients, the use of robotic surgery in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been studied yet. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for IBD patients. Prospectively data in IBD patients having robotic resection at Guy's and St Thomas' hospital. All resections performed by a single colorectal surgeon specialised in IBD, utilising DaVinci platform. July 2021 to January 2023, 59 robotic IBD cases performed, 14 ulcerative colitis (UC) and 45 Crohn's disease (CD). Average age; CD patients 35, UC 33 years. Average Body mass index (BMI); 23 for CD and 26.9 for UC patients. In total, we performed 31 ileo-caecal resections (ICR) with primary anastomosis (18 Kono-S anastomosis, 6 mechanical anastomosis and 7 ileo-colostomy), of those 4 had multivisceral resections (large bowel, bladder, ovary). Furthermore, 14 subtotal colectomy (1 emergency), 8 proctectomy, 3 panproctocolectomy and 3 ileoanal J pouch. 18 of the 45 patients (45.0%) with Crohn's disease had ongoing fistulating disease to other parts of the GI tract (small or large bowel). ICR were performed using different three ports position, depending on the anatomy established prior to surgery with magnetic resonance images (MRI). One patient had conversion to open due to anaesthetic problems and one patient required re-operation to refashion stoma. 98.0% cases completed robotically. Median Length of hospital stay (LOS) was 7 days for CD and 7 for UC cases, including LOS in patients on pre-operative parenteral nutrition. Robotic colorectal techniques can be safely used for patients with IBD, even with fistulating disease. Future research and collaborations are necessary to standardize technique within institutions.

Implementation of totally robotic right hemicolectomy: lessons learned from a prospective cohort

Robotics facilitates the realization of intra-corporeal anastomosis during right hemicolectomy and allows extracting the operative specimen through a C-section, offering potential benefits in terms of post-operative recovery and incidence of incisional hernia. Therefore, we progressively implemented robotic right hemicolectomy (robRHC) in our centre, and would like to report our initial experience with the technique. Consecutive patients who underwent robRHC within a single centre were prospectively included. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected. Sixty patients underwent robRHC in our centre. Indications for robRHC were colon cancer in 58 patients (96.7%) and polyps not amenable to endoscopic resection in 2 patients (3.3%). Fifty-eight patients underwent robRHC with D2 lymphadenectomy and central vessel ligation (96.7%), and two patients (3.3%) had robRHC associated with another procedure. All patients had intra-corporeal anastomosis. The mean ± operative time was of 200.4 ± 114.9 min. Two conversions (3.3%) to open surgery were performed. The mean ± SD length of stay was of 5.4 ± 3.8 days. Seven patients (11.7%) experienced a post-operative complication with a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 2. Two patients (3.5%) had an anastomotic leak. The mean ± SD number of harvested lymph nodes was of 22.4 ± 7.6. All patients had negative pathological margins (R0 resection). To conclude, robotic RHC is a safe procedure, which can be implemented with satisfying peri- and post-operative outcomes. The potential benefits of the technique remain to be demonstrated by randomized controlled trials.

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in morbidly obese patients: A propensity score-matched analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Morbid obesity is associated with poorer postoperative outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We aimed to evaluate short-term outcomes after robotic versus conventional laparoscopic CRC resection in morbidly obese patients.

METHODS

This population-based, retrospective study extracted data from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample during 2005-2018. Adults ≥ 20 years old, with morbid obesity and CRC, and undergoing robotic or laparoscopic resections were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to minimize the confounding. Univariate and multivariable regression was conducted to evaluate the associations between outcomes and study variables.

RESULTS

After PSM, 1296 patients remained. The risks of any postoperative complication (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80, 1.22), prolonged length of stay (LOS) (aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.01), death (aOR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.11, 3.10), or pneumonia (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.77) were not significantly different between the two procedures after adjustment. Robotic surgery was significantly associated with greater hospital cost (aBeta = 26.26, 95% CI: 16.08, 36.45) than laparoscopic surgery. Stratified analyses revealed that, in patients with tumor located at the colon, robotic surgery was associated with lower risk of prolonged LOS (aOR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with morbid obesity, risks of postoperative complication, death, or pneumonia are not significantly different between robotic and laparoscopic CRC resection. Among patients with tumor located at the colon, robotic surgery is associated with lower risk of prolonged LOS. These findings fill the knowledge gap and provide useful information for clinicians on risk stratification and treatment choice.

Operative and oncological outcomes after robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery, show little difference in clinical outcomes to justify the expense. We systematically reviewed and pooled evidence from studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection.

METHOD

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), and Cochrane databases were searched for studies between 1996 and 2021 comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgeries involving total mesorectal excision. Outcome measures included operative times, conversions to open, complications, recurrence and survival rates.

RESULTS

Fifty eligible studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections; three were randomized trials. Pooled results showed significantly longer operating times for robotic surgery but lower conversion and complications rates, shorter lengths of stay in hospital, better rates of complete mesorectal resection and better three-year overall survival. However, the low number of randomized studies makes most data subject to bias.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence supports the safety and ongoing use of robotic rectal cancer surgery, while further high-quality evidence is sought to justify the expense.

Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

AIM

An increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13-16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20-24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3-5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6-8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38-46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26-31%)].

CONCLUSION

Rectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

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 Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Oncological Outcomes

The treatment of rectal cancer is complex and involves specialized multidisciplinary care, although the tenet is still rooted in a high-quality total mesorectal excision. The robotic platform is one of many tools in the arsenal to assist dissection in the low pelvis. This article is a comprehensive review of the oncological outcome comparing robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, with a particular focus on total mesorectal excision. There is no statistical difference in total mesorectal grade, circumferential margin, distal margin, and lymph node harvest. Survival data are less mature, but there is also no difference in disease-free or overall survival between the two techniques. Although additional randomized trials are still needed to validate these findings, both techniques are currently acceptable in the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, and surgeon preference is paramount to safe and optimal resection.

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

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

Outcomes of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: an observational single hospital study of 300 cases

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery attempts to facilitate rectal surgery in the narrow space of the pelvis. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Monocentric retrospective study including 300 patients who underwent robotic (n = 178) or laparoscopic (n = 122) resection between Jan 2009 and Dec 2017 for high, mid and low rectal cancer. The robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable with regard to pretreatment characteristics, except for sex and ASA status. There were no statistical differences between groups in the conversion rate to open surgery. Surgical morbidity and oncological quality did not differ in either group, except for the anastomosis leakage rate and the affected distal resection margin. There were no differences in overall survival rate between the laparoscopic and robotic group. Robotic surgery could provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, such as three-dimensional views, articulated instruments, lower fatigue, lower conversion rate to open surgery, shorter hospital stays and lower urinary and sexual dysfunctions. On the other hand, robotic surgery usually implies longer operation times and higher costs. As shown in the ROLARR trial, no statistical differences in conversion rate were found between the groups in our study. When performed by experienced surgeons, robotic surgery for rectal cancer could be a safe and feasible option with no significant differences in terms of oncological outcomes in comparison to laparoscopic 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.

Implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision by multiple surgeons in a large teaching hospital: Morbidity, long-term oncological and functional outcome

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) might offer benefits in less morbidity, better functional and long-term outcome over laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing robot-assisted TME for rectal cancer during implementation between May 2015 and December 2019 performed by five surgeons in a single centre were included. Outcomes included local recurrence rate at 3 years, conversion rate, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity rate, 30-day postoperative morbidity and outcomes of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaires.

RESULTS

In 105 robot-assisted TME, local recurrence rate at 3 years was 7.4%, conversion to open surgery rate was 8.6%, CRM positivity rate was 5.7%, 73.3% had good quality specimen, postoperative morbidity rate was 47.6% and anastomotic leakage rate was 9.0%. Incidence of major LARS was 55.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

results of this study described acceptable morbidity, functional and long-term outcome during implementation of robotic TME for rectal cancer by multiple surgeons in a single centre.

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.

Risk factors for conversion in laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review risk factors for conversion in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients operated on from February 2005 to April 2018. Adult patients undergoing low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal adenocarcinoma by a minimally invasive approach were included. Exclusion criteria were lack of research authorization, stage IV or recurrent rectal cancer, and emergency surgery. Risk factors for conversion were investigated using logistic regression. A subgroup analysis of obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m² or more) was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The overall conversion rate was 9·2 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed a 72 per cent lower risk of conversion when patients had robotic surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0·28, 95 per cent c.i. 0·15 to 0·52). Obese patients experienced a threefold higher risk of conversion compared with non-obese patients (47 versus 24·4 per cent respectively; P < 0·001). Robotic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of conversion in obese patients (OR 0·22, 0·07 to 0·71).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was associated with a lower risk of conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, in both obese and non-obese patients.

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

PURPOSE

This study aimed to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery with or without lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for rectal cancer at Fujita Health University Hospital, Aichi, Japan, during a self-pay period.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 115 consecutive patients who underwent robotic surgery for rectal cancer between September 2009 and March 2018, with a median follow-up period of 48 months. Total mesorectal excision was completed by two certified surgeons using a da Vinci S, Si, or Xi Surgical System with an entirely robotic single-docking technique. The surgical and pathological outcomes, morbidity, and oncological results were examined.

RESULTS

Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 26 patients (22.6%). Neither conversion to open surgery nor perioperative blood transfusion occurred. Ten patients (8.7%) experienced Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Pathologically, both the distal and radial margins were negative in all cases. The 5-year relapse-free survival rates for stages I, II, III, and IV were 93.5%, 100%, 83.8%, and not reached, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the period before coverage by the health insurance system, robotic surgery for rectal cancer performed by experienced surgeons was safe and technically feasible, with favorable perioperative results and long-term oncological outcomes, including rates of the relapse-free survival.

Impact of surgical approach on short-term oncological outcomes and recovery following low anterior resection for rectal cancer

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the influence of operative approach for low anterior resection (LAR) on oncological and postoperative outcomes. Minimally invasive surgical approaches are increasingly used for the treatment of rectal cancer with mixed outcomes.

METHOD

We compared patients undergoing LAR in the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2015 by surgical approach. Multivariable regression was used to identify risk factors associated with conversion rate, prolonged length of stay (LOS) and 30-day unplanned readmission.

RESULTS

During the study period, 41 282 patients underwent LAR: 6035 robotic-assisted (RLAR) (14.6%), 13 826 laparoscopic (LLAR) (33.5%) and 21 421 open (OLAR) (51.9%). In propensity score matched analysis, RLAR compared to LLAR was associated with shorter LOS (6.3 vs 6.8 days, P < 0.0001), lower risk of prolonged LOS (22.1% vs 25.6%, P < 0.0001) and lower rate of conversion to open (7.5% vs 14.95%, P < 0.0001). Compared to OLAR, RLAR had shorter LOS (6.3 vs 7.8 days, P < 0.0001) and less prolonged LOS (14.1% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, for conversion to open, the laparoscopic approach was one of the risk factors; for prolonged LOS, conversion to open and non-robotic approaches (i.e. LLAR and OLAR) were risk factors; and for unplanned 30-day readmission, conversions and prolonged LOS were risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with rectal cancer, RLAR shows recovery benefits over both open and laparoscopic LAR with reduced conversion to open compared with LLAR and less prolonged LOS compared with LLAR and OLAR. RLAR is associated with short-term oncological outcomes comparable to OLAR, supporting its use in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.