Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer

Learning curve analysis for prophylactic bilateral robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) is an important surgical procedure in the treatment of lower rectal cancer (RC). However, limited data are available regarding the learning curve for robot-assisted LLND (RA-LLND). This study aimed to evaluate the learning curve for prophylactic bilateral RA-LLND for lower RC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 58 consecutive patients with clinical stage II/III lower RC who had undergone prophylactic bilateral RA-LLND between July 2020 and June 2024. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to evaluate the learning curve for bilateral RA-LLND operative time.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 61.5 years, and mean body mass index was 23.4 kg/m2. The proportion of neoadjuvant therapy was 8.6%. Mean prophylactic bilateral RA-LLND operative time was 173.7 min. CUSUM analysis divided the learning curve for prophylactic bilateral RA-LLND operative time into three phases: initial learning phase (20 cases); competence phase (16 cases); and master/proficiency phase (subsequent cases). Mastery of surgical technique was achieved after performing the 36th case. Comparisons of surgical outcomes in terms of operative parameters and complications were made between phases 1 and 2 combined and phase 3. A significant reduction in mean prophylactic bilateral RA-LLND operative time was observed between phases 1 and 2 compared with phase 3 (P < 0.01). Mean blood loss was decreased in phase 3 (40.5 ml) compared to phases 1 and 2 combined (148.2 ml, P < 0.01). The frequencies of overall postoperative complications directly related to LLND and urinary dysfunction were significantly reduced in phase 3 compared to phases 1 and 2 combined (P = 0.04, and P = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The three phases identified by CUSUM analysis represented characteristics of the learning curve for prophylactic bilateral RA-LLND. These data suggest that 20 cases are required for the early stage of the learning curve, whereas mastery level could be achieved after 36 cases.

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Locally-Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study Comparing Perioperative Morbidity and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been associated with superior short-term outcomes in patients undergoing total mesorectal excision (TME) for organ-confined rectal cancer. However, whether this approach offers an additional benefit over laparoscopy when performing lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) with TME or extended TME (e-TME) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is not known.

AIMS

This study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic LPLND in patients with lateral pelvic node-positive LARC with reference to intraoperative safety, postoperative morbidity, pathological indices including nodal yield and node positivity rates, lateral pelvic recurrence rates, and short term event-free and overall survival.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective single-center study, consecutive patients with non-metastatic histologically proven LARC and clinically significant lateral pelvic lymphadenopathy who had undergone laparoscopic or robotic LPLND with TME or e-TME between 2014 and 2023 were included, all procedures having been performed by minimal-access colorectal surgeons who were beyond the learning curve for either surgical approach. Of the 115 patients evaluated, 98.3% received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, following which 27 (23.5%) underwent robotic and 88 (76.5%) laparoscopic LPLND with TME or e-TME. The baseline clinicodemographic features, treatment-related characteristics, and proportion of patients undergoing extended resections for persistent circumferential resection margin-positive rectal cancer (22.7% vs. 18.5%, respectively) were statistically similar in both groups. When comparing robotic with laparoscopic resections, no significant difference was observed in intraoperative parameters including procedure-associated blood loss (median 250 mL vs. 400 mL) and on-table adverse events or conversion rates (none in either group), postoperative outcomes comprising clinically significant early (14.8% vs. 9.1%), intermediate (5.3% vs. 1.9%) and late (5.3% vs. 2.0%) surgical morbidity, re-exploration rates (7.4% vs. 3.4%) and duration of hospital stay (median 6 days in both groups), or the pathological quality indices of margin involvement (7.4% vs. 2.3%), nodal yield (median 4 vs. 7 nodes) and lateral node positivity (22.2% vs. 26.1%), respectively. At a median 11 months follow-up, oncological outcomes in terms of lateral pelvic recurrence rates (3.7% vs. 4.5%), 2-year event-free survival (78.7% vs. 79.3%) and 2-year overall survival (83.1% vs. 93.8%) were also comparable.

CONCLUSION

Surgical competence in laparoscopy may offset the potential benefits extended by robotic platforms. In a high-volume setup with experienced minimal-access surgeons, the clinical, pathological, and short-term oncological outcomes associated with both approaches may be considered equivalent.

Postoperative urinary dysfunction following lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer via minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

Lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is performed widely since it reduces local recurrence. However, there are some disadvantages to LLND, including technical difficulties and association with postoperative urinary dysfunction. Procedures for LARC have also become more minimally invasive: laparoscopic surgery (LS) has become more common, and use of robot-assisted LS (RALS) is increasing. The purpose of this study is to assess differences in postoperative urinary dysfunction after LLND for LARC between LS and RALS, and to identify risk factors for postoperative urinary dysfunction.

METHODS

The subjects were 100 patients with LARC (≥ cT3) with the inferior border of the tumor reaching the peritoneal reflection who underwent LS or RALS with LLND between 2009 and 2023 at Juntendo University Hospital. After LLND, the urinary catheter was usually removed on or before postoperative day 5. The duration of urinary catheterization (DUC) was used to evaluate postoperative urinary dysfunction. The standard (S) and long-term (L) groups were defined as cases with urinary catheter removal at ≤ 5 and > 5 days, respectively. DUC was examined for LS vs. RALS and clinicopathological factors were identified that adversely affect DUC.

RESULTS

Of the 100 subjects, 72 underwent LS and 28 received RALS. LLND was bilateral in 65 cases and unilateral in 35 cases. The median DUC was 5 days, with 74 cases in group S and 26 in group L. The most frequent postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade 2 or higher) was urinary dysfunction, followed by ileus and surgical site infection (SSI), and none differed by procedure (LS vs. RALS). Univariate analysis showed significant differences in LLND laterality (p = 0.02) and SSI (p = 0.04) between groups S and L. In multivariate analysis, bilateral LLND (p < 0.01, HR 7.37) and SSI (p = 0.01, HR 15.36) were independent factors that worsened DUC.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in urinary dysfunction after LLND between LS and RALS. Bilateral LLND and SSI were risk factors for lengthening DUC. Compared to bilateral LLND, unilateral LLND can reduce urinary dysfunction; therefore, selective LLND, which is overwhelmingly unilateral LLND, and prevention of perioperative SSI may be important for maintenance of urinary function.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted extended mesorectal excision: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review of perioperative and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Concurrent neoadjuvant chemo-radiation (nCRT) with total mesorectal excision (TME) alone sometimes fails to cure lateral lymph node metastasis (LLNM). Therefore, additional lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) can help in the treatment of these patients. This is what we refer to as extended total mesorectal excision (eTME). Such operations (TME alone or eTME) can be performed using conventional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assisted techniques as well. Our meta-analysis aims to compare the results of robot-assisted (R-eTME) versus laparoscopic-assisted extended mesorectal excision (L-eTME) in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODOLOGY

Databases searched using title and abstract included Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase, up to February 20, 2024. All studies that documented robotic versus laparoscopic procedures for extended total mesorectal excision (R-eTME versus L-eTME) and reported more than two relevant outcomes, were included in the study.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates four significant outcomes (operative time, urinary complications, overall recurrence, and admission days) between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. The robotic approach shows advantages over the laparoscopic approach in these outcomes except for the operative time (minute), which was longer in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group. The laparoscopic group is associated with a higher overall recurrence than the robotic group with an Odds Ratio of 2(95% CI, 1-4, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis study showed that the R-eTME group had a lower recurrence rate compared to the L-eTME group. Additionally, hospital admission days increased significantly in the laparoscopic group. Other long-term outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. Short-term outcomes were similar, except for more urinary complications in the laparoscopic group. In conclusion, the study suggests that robotic surgery may offer advantages over laparoscopic surgery for eTME. Further research and analysis could provide further insight into the potential benefits of robotic surgery in this procedure, particularly when surgeon experience, center volume, and learning curve are taken into consideration.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

This study attempted to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RS), and open surgery (OS) for lateral lymph-node dissection (LLND) in treatment of rectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect cohort studies on outcomes of LS, RS, and OS for LLND for rectal cancer. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the quality of cohort studies. Primary outcomes should at least include one of the following clinical outcome measures: operative time, blood loss, total lymph-node harvest, positive resection margin rate, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. A network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software. Fourteen cohort studies including 8612 patients were eligible for inclusion. The network meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of intraoperative outcomes, the RS group had the longest operative time, while the OS group had the shortest; the LS and RS groups had significantly less blood loss than the OS group. In terms of histological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes harvested and the positive margin rate among the LS, RS, and OS groups (P > 0.05). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the OS group had the highest probability of postoperative complications and the longest hospital stay, followed by the LS group, with the RS group being the lowest. RS was the best method in blood loss, postoperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital stay, followed by LS. OS had the shortest operative time and the highest blood loss.

Efficacy of lateral lymph node dissection for local control of rectal cancer: A multicenter study

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for rectal cancer by comparing the local control in patients with and without pathological lateral lymph node metastasis (LLNM).

Methods

We included 189 patients with rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision and LLND at 13 institutions between 2017 and 2019. Patients with and without pathological LLNM were defined as the pLLNM (+) and (-) groups, respectively. Propensity score-matching helped to balance the basic characteristics of both groups. The incidences of local recurrence (LR) and lateral lymph node recurrence (LLNR) were compared between the groups.

Results

In the entire cohort, 39 of the 189 patients had pathological LLNM. The 3-year LR and LLNR rates were 18.3% and 4.0% (p = 0.01) and 7.7% and 3.3% (p = 0.22) in the pLLNM (+) and (-) groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, the data from 62 patients were analyzed. No significant differences in LR or LLNR were observed between both groups. The 3-year LR and LLNR rates were 16.4% and 9.8% (p = 0.46) and 9.7% and 9.8% (p = 0.99) in the pLLNM (+) and (-) groups, respectively.

Conclusion

LLND would lead to comparable local control in the pLLNM (+) and (-) groups if the clinicopathological characteristics except for LLNM are similar.

Robotic versus laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few available studies that compare the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection compared to laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection (LPLND) in advanced rectal cancer. This meta-analysis aims to compare perioperative outcomes between robotic and LPLND.

METHODS

We performed a systemic literature review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Perioperative parameters were extracted and pooled for analysis. This meta-analysis provided an analysis of heterogeneity and prediction intervals.

RESULTS

Five studies were included: 567 patients divided between 266 robotic and 301 LPLND. Overall operation time was longer in the robotic group than laparoscopic group (difference in means = 67.11, 95% CI [30.80, 103.42], p < 0.001) but the difference in the pelvic lateral lymph dissection time was not statistically significant (difference in means =  - 1.212, 95% CI [ - 11.594, 9.171], p = 0.819). There were fewer overall complications in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (OR = 1.589, 95% CI [1.009, 2.503], p = 0.046), especially with respect to urinary retention (OR = 2.23, 95% CI [1.277, 3.894], p = 0.005). More pelvic lateral lymph nodes were harvested by robotic surgery than by laparoscopy (differences in means =  - 1.992, 95% CI [ - 2.421, 1.563], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection was associated with more pelvic lateral lymph nodes harvested and lower overall complications, especially urinary retention when compared to LPLND. Further studies are needed to reinforce these findings.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lateral pelvic node dissection (LPND) poses significant technical challenges. Despite the advent of robotic surgery, determining the optimal minimally invasive approach remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes between robotic total mesorectal excision with LPND (R-LPND) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with LPND (L-LPND).

METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. Utilizing the RevMan 5.3.5 statistical package from the Cochrane Collaboration, a random-effects model was employed.

RESULTS

Six eligible studies involving 652 patients (316 and 336 in the R-LPND and L-LPND groups, respectively) were retrieved. The robotic approach demonstrated favourable outcomes compared with the laparoscopic approach, manifesting in lower morbidity rates, reduced urinary complications, shorter hospital stays, and a higher number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes. However, longer operative time was associated with the robotic approach. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding major complications, anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal infection, neurological complications, LPND time, overall recurrence, and local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the robotic approach is a safe and feasible alternative for Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) with LPND in advanced rectal cancer. Notably, it is associated with lower morbidity, particularly a reduction in urinary complications, a shorter hospital stay and increased number of harvested lateral pelvic nodes. The trade-off for these benefits is a longer operative time.

Comparison of laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer with and without routine resection of the visceral branches of internal iliac artery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore the safety and feasibility of the modified lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) with routine resection of the visceral branches of internal iliac vessels (IIVs) for mid-low-lying rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Consecutive patients undergoing LLND for rectal cancer were divided into the routine visceral branches of the IIVs resection group (RVR group) and the NRVR group (without routine resection). The main outcomes were postoperative complications and the number of lateral lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2021, a total of 75 and 57 patients were included in the RVR and NRVR group, respectively. The operative time was reduced in the RVR group (p = 0.020). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for the incidence of total, major, or minor postoperative complications. Pathologically confirmed LLNM were 24 (32%) patients in the RVR group and 12 (21.1%) in the NRVR group (p = 0.162). The number of lateral lymph nodes harvested had no significant difference between two groups (11 vs. 12, p = 0.329).

CONCLUSION

LLND with routine resection of visceral branches of IIVs is safe and feasible, which brings no major complication or long-term urinary disorder.

Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive lateral pelvic lymph node dissection of advanced lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study comparing short-term outcomes

PURPOSE

The importance of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced low rectal cancer is gradually being recognized in Europe and the USA, where some patients were affected by uncontrolled lateral pelvic lymph node (LLNs) metastasis, even after total mesorectal excision (TME) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The purpose of this study was thus to compare robotic LLND (R-LLND) with laparoscopic (L-LLND) to clarify the safety and advantages of R-LLND.

METHODS

Sixty patients were included in this single-institution retrospective study between January 2013 and July 2022. We compared the short-term outcomes of 27 patients who underwent R-LLND and 33 patients who underwent L-LLND.

RESULTS

En bloc LLND was performed in significantly more patients in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (48.1% vs. 15.2%; p = 0.006). The numbers of LLNs on the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D) harvested were significantly higher in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (2 [0-9] vs. 1 [0-6]; p = 0.023). The total operative time was significantly longer in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (587 [460-876] vs. 544 [398-859]; p = 0.003); however, the LLND time was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.718). Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study clarified the safety and technical feasibility of R-LLND with respect to L-LLND. Our findings suggest that the robotic approach offers a key advantage, allowing significantly more LLNs to be harvested from the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D). Prospective clinical trials examining the oncological superiority of R-LLND are thus necessary in the near future.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study at two institutions

BACKGROUND

Lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) represents a technically challenging procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative, genitourinary functional and mid-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (LLLND) and robotic lateral lymph node dissection (RLLND) for advanced lower rectal cancer (ALRC).

METHODS

Between January 2015 and April 2021, consecutive patients who underwent RLLND and LLLND at two high-volume centres were enrolled. The perioperative outcomes, genitourinary function recovery and mid-term oncological outcomes of the patients were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 205 patients were included in the analysis, with 95 in the RLLND group and 110 in the LLLND group. The patients in the RLLND group had a longer operative time, less blood loss, and more harvested internal iliac lymph nodes than did those in the LLLND group. In postoperative complication, urinary retention was less frequent in the RLLND group than in the LLLND group. Additionally, the RLLND group had better genitourinary function recovery. Similar results were also observed from the nCRT subgroup analysis. Moreover, there was no significant difference in mid-term oncological outcomes between the two groups. Further subgroup analysis indicated that the patients who underwent nCRT + LLLND/RLLND had better local control than those who underwent only LLLND/RLLND.

CONCLUSIONS

RLLND is safe and feasible for ALRC and is associated with more harvested internal iliac lymph nodes and better genitourinary function recovery. NCRT combined with minimally invasive LLND could constitute an improved strategy for ALRC.

Current Status of Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery

Development of surgical support robots began in the 1980s as a navigation and auxiliary device for endoscopic surgery. For remote surgery on the battlefield, a master-slave-type surgical support robot was developed, in which a console surgeon operates the robot at will. The da Vinci surgical system, which currently dominates the global robotic surgery market, received United States Food and Drug Administration and regulatory approval in Japan in 2000 and 2009 respectively. The latest, fourth generation, da Vinci Xi has a good field of view via a three-dimensional monitor, highly operable forceps, a motion scale function, and a tremor-filtered articulated function. Gastroenterological tract robotic surgery is safe and minimally invasive when accessing and operating on the esophagus, stomach, colon, and rectum. The learning curve is said to be short, and robotic surgery will likely be standardized soon. Therefore, robotic surgery training should be systematized for young surgeons so that it can be further standardized and later adapted to a wider range of surgeries. This article reviews current trends and potential developments in robotic surgery.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for lower rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

There have been reports about robotic surgery for rectal cancer with chemoradiotherapy (CRT), but only a few studies have compared the use of robotic surgery with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The aim of our study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic surgery with and without NAC for lower rectal cancer and to examine the effects of NAC on robotic surgery.

METHODS

From January 2016 to July 2021, we compared the short-term outcomes of 45 patients who did not undergo NAC and 55 patients who underwent NAC.

RESULTS

The rate of sphincter-preserving surgeries was higher in the NAC group than in the non-NAC group (P = .024). The total operative time was significantly longer in the NAC group than in the non-NAC group (P < .001). The rate of lateral lymph node dissection was significantly higher in the NAC group than in the non-NAC group (P < .001). No significant differences were identified in the rate of incisional surgical site infections (SSI), organ/space SSI postoperative bleeding, small bowel obstruction, anastomotic leakage, urinary dysfunction, or urinary infections between the groups. There were eight incidences of lateral lymph node metastasis (15%) and two cases with positive resection margins (4.0%) in the NAC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery after NAC has few complications and a higher sphincter-preserving rate that without NAC.

Robotic surgery contributes to the preservation of bowel and urinary function after total mesorectal excision: comparisons with transanal and conventional laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Determine whether robotic surgery is more effective than transanal and conventional laparoscopic surgery in preserving bowel and urinary function after total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

Of 79 lower rectal cancer patients who underwent function-preserving TME between 2016 and 2020, 64 patients consented to a prospective questionnaire-based functional observation study (52 responded). At 6 months post-resection or ileostomy closure, Wexner, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), modified fecal incontinence quality of life, and international prostate symptom scores were used to evaluate bowel and urinary function, comparing robotic surgery (RTME) with transanal (taTME) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (LTME).

RESULTS

RTME was performed in 35 patients (54.7%), taTME in 15 (23.4%), and LTME in 14 (21.9%). While preoperative bowel/urinary functions were similar in all three procedures, and the distance from the anal verge to tumor was almost the same, more hand-sewn anastomoses were performed and the anastomotic height from the anal verge was shorter in taTME than RTME. At 2 years post-resection, 8 patients (12.5%) had a permanent stoma; RTME showed a significantly lower rate of permanent stoma than taTME (2.9% vs. 40%, p < 0.01). Despite no significant difference, all bowel function assessments were better in RTME than in taTME or LTME. Major LARS was observed in all taTME and LTME cases, but only 78.8% of RTME. No clear difference arose between RTME and taTME in urinary function; urinary dysfunction was more severe in LTME than RTME (36.4% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In function-preserving TME for lower rectal cancer, robotic surgery was suggested to be more effective than transanal and conventional laparoscopic surgery in terms of bowel and urinary functions.

Transanal total mesorectal excision and transabdominal robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Transabdominal robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are newly introduced strategies for rectal cancer. These procedures might have many advantages in rectal cancer treatment in terms of improving oncological and functional outcomes, especially in cases involving advanced cancer or technical difficulty. In the present study, we aimed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of transabdominal robotic surgery and laparoscopic TaTME as a hybrid surgery for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated six patients who underwent hybrid surgery for rectal cancer from August 2018 to April 2020. Both clinical and pathological outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Two patients showed circumferential margin involvement both before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Three patients were planned to undergo hybrid surgery with intersphincteric resection because of a narrow pelvis. One patient was planned to undergo hybrid surgery for a giant tumor of >10 cm. The median length of hospitalization was 17 days. No patients required conversion to an open procedure. All patients underwent formation of defunctioning ileostomies. Two patients had a stapled anastomosis and four had a hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Complications included one case of anastomotic leakage, which was managed conservatively with ultrasound- and computed tomography-guided drainage and antibiotics. Histological analysis revealed that all specimens had a negative radial margin and distal margin. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 17.5. Two patients showed extensive lymph node metastases, including lateral node metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid surgery was performed safely and may improve oncological outcomes for rectal cancer. This technique has many potential benefits and would be alternative option in multimodal strategies for rectal cancer.

Exploratory analysis of lateral pelvic sentinel lymph node status for optimal management of laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection in advanced lower rectal cancer without suspected lateral lymph node metastasis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) and lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) without radiotherapy (RT) are standard treatment for lower cT3/4 rectal cancers in Eastern countries. In comparative studies, both TME + LLND and RT + TME yield good local control. Although Japanese guidelines recommend LLND for locally advanced rectal cancers below the peritoneal reflection, LLND dissection of clinically negative lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPLN) is controversial, and laparoscopic TME + LLND is technically challenging and time-consuming. New optical instruments for laparoscopy allow easy perioperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) identification using ICG. The SLN concept may facilitate accurate diagnosis of LPLN involvement, and thus reduce LLND in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Here we investigated lateral pelvic SLN navigation surgery for SLN detection during laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

This study included 21 patients with clinical StageII/III lower rectal cancer without LPLN enlargement, who underwent curative laparoscopic surgery. All patients underwent TME, followed by lateral SLN identification and biopsy using ICG, and then laparoscopic LLND. ICG fluorescence imaging was conducted using the laparoscopic near-infrared camera system.

RESULTS

Lateral SLNs were successfully identified in 16 (76.2%) of the 21 patients. Among the 15 patients without SLN tumor metastasis, the dissected lateral non-SLNs were all negative.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of metastasis in the lateral pelvic SLN seems to reflect a lack of metastases to all lateral LNs. Our present results suggest that this laparoscopic ICG-guided SLN strategy may be a low-risk and time-saving method to prevent laparoscopic LLND in cases with negative lateral pelvic lymph nodes.