The impact of surgical approach on short- and long-term outcomes after rectal cancer resection in elderly patients: a national cancer database propensity score matched comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches

Rise in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Is Associated With Adoption of Robotic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with improved short-term outcomes and similar long-term oncologic outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer compared with open surgery. Although the robotic approach has ergonomic and technical benefits, how it has impacted the utilization of traditional laparoscopic surgery and minimally invasive surgery overall is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

Describe trends in open, robotic, and laparoscopic approaches for colorectal cancer resections and examine factors associated with minimally invasive surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using data from the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2020.

SETTING

Commission on Cancer-accredited US facilities.

PATIENTS

Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic colon or rectal adenocarcinoma.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgical approach rates (open, robotic, and laparoscopic).

RESULTS

We identified 475,001 patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma, of whom 192,237 (40.5%) underwent open surgery, 64,945 (13.7%) underwent robotic surgery, and 217,819 (45.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgery. For colon cancer, laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery use steadily increased, with a peak prevalence of 54.0% in 2016, and total minimally invasive surgery (robotic + laparoscopic) was performed more often than open surgery from 2013 through 2020. For rectal cancer, laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery had a peak prevalence of 37.2% in 2014 and declined from 2014 through 2020; robotic surgery prevalence increased throughout the study period (5.5% in 2010, 24.7% in 2015, and 48.8% in 2020). Minimally invasive surgery use increased in facilities performing robotic surgery every year during the study period. For both colon and rectal cancer, the use of open surgery decreased across all facilities throughout the study period.

LIMITATIONS

This study used the National Cancer Database, which may not be generalizable to non-Commission on Cancer institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery steadily increased across all facilities from 2010 through 2020. Open resections declined, laparoscopic resections plateaued, and robotic resections increased for colon and rectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery increases may be driven by increases in robot-assisted surgery. See Video Abstract.

EL AUMENTO DE LA CIRUGA MNIMAMENTE INVASIVA PARA EL CNCER COLORRECTAL SE ASOCIA CON LA ADOPCIN A LA CIRUGA ROBTICA

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía mínimamente invasiva se asocia con mejores resultados a corto plazo y resultados oncológicos similares a largo plazo para pacientes con cáncer colorrectal en comparación con la cirugía abierta. Aunque el abordaje robótico tiene beneficios ergonómicos y técnicos, no está claro cómo ha afectado la utilización de la cirugía laparoscópica tradicional y la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en general.OBJETIVO:Describir las tendencias en los abordajes abiertos, robóticos y laparoscópicos para las resecciones de cáncer colorrectal y examinar los factores asociados con la cirugía mínimamente invasiva.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo utilizando datos de la Base de Datos Nacional del Cáncer desde 2010 hasta 2020.ESCENARIO:Centros estadounidenses acreditados por la Comisión sobre el Cáncer.PACIENTES:Pacientes diagnosticados con adenocarcinoma de colon o recto no metastásico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Tasas de abordaje quirúrgico (abierto, robótico, laparoscópico).RESULTADOS:Identificamos 475.001 pacientes con diagnóstico de adenocarcinoma colorrectal no metastásico, de los cuales 192.237 (40,5%) se sometieron a cirugía abierta, 64.945 (13,7%) se sometieron a cirugía robótica y 217.819 (45,9%) se sometieron a cirugía laparoscópica. Para el cáncer de colon, el uso de cirugía mínimamente invasiva laparoscópica aumentó de manera constante, con una prevalencia máxima del 54,0% en 2016, y la cirugía mínimamente invasiva total (robótica + laparoscópica) se realizó con mayor frecuencia que la cirugía abierta desde 2013 hasta 2020. Para el cáncer de recto, la cirugía mínimamente invasiva laparoscópica tuvo una prevalencia máxima del 37,2% en 2014 y disminuyó desde 2014 hasta 2020; La prevalencia de la cirugía robótica aumentó durante el período de estudio (5,5 % en 2010, 24,7 % en 2015, 48,8 % en 2020). El uso de cirugía mínimamente invasiva aumentó en los centros que realizan cirugía robótica cada año durante el período de estudio. Tanto para el cáncer de colon como para el cáncer de recto, el uso de cirugía abierta disminuyó en todos los centros durante el período de estudio.LIMITACIONES:Se utilizó la base de datos nacional sobre el cáncer, que puede no ser generalizable a instituciones que no pertenecen a la Comisión sobre el Cáncer.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía mínimamente invasiva aumentó de manera constante en todos los centros entre 2010 y 2020. Las resecciones abiertas disminuyeron, las resecciones laparoscópicas se estabilizaron y las resecciones robóticas aumentaron para el cáncer de colon y recto. Los aumentos de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva pueden estar impulsados por aumentos en la cirugía asistida por robot. (Traducción--Ingrid Melo ).

The effect of minimally invasive surgery on thirty-day postoperative outcomes of frail patients undergoing emergency colon resections

BACKGROUND

Frail patients have poor outcomes after emergent colon surgery. While minimally invasive surgery has shown improved outcomes in the general patient population undergoing colectomy, the benefits in frail patients are unknown.

METHODS

We identified frail patients who underwent urgent or emergent colon resections from 2017 to 2021 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. We defined frail as a score of 2 or greater on the modified frailty index. We used inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis to determine the association of surgical technique with 30-day postoperative outcomes independent of confounding variables.

RESULTS

Of the 11,976 frail patients, 10,293 (87.2%) underwent open surgery and 1,503 (12.7%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Patients who underwent open surgery had significantly more comorbid conditions. The most common diagnosis for patients who underwent open surgery was intra-abdominal sepsis (59.6%) and neoplasms for patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (42%). After the inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis, the standardized difference was reduced to 1.7% or less. At 30 days from surgery, minimally invasive surgery was independently associated with reduced risk of death: 4.6% (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.97; P < .001), severe complications: 6.9% (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.95, P < .001), any complication: 8.8% (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94, P < .001), septic shock: 5.9% (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.96 P < .001), postoperative bleeding: 4% (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.98, P < .001), hospital stay >14 days: 4.2% (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99, P = .02).

CONCLUSION

In this vulnerable population of frail patients, minimally invasive surgery was associated with reduced risk of morbidity and mortality in the 30 days after emergency colectomy. A minimally invasive surgery approach should be considered in emergency colon surgeries, provided proficient resources are available.

Robotic versus laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, and mortality

OBJECTIVE

Compare the efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer treatment, addressing the ongoing debate within the medical community regarding the optimal surgical approach.

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, surgery has been the cornerstone of rectal cancer treatment, aimed at tumor removal and intestinal function preservation. Recent advancements have introduced laparoscopic and robotic surgeries as minimally invasive alternatives to conventional methods. However, it faces limitations in instrument mobility and dexterity. Robotic approach, on the other hand, enhances these aspects by providing surgeons with advanced precision, a three-dimensional high-definition view, and superior tissue manipulation capabilities, making it an increasingly preferred option for rectal cancer treatment.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA-2020 guidelines was carried out. This study analyzed phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic approach in treating rectal cancer. Only studies meeting specific criteria were included, with congress abstracts, narrative reviews, case reports, and letters to the editor excluded.

RESULTS

We identified 350 studies, 8 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 2525 patients from diverse geographical locations. The main outcomes analyzed were regional recurrence, anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and mortality. The findings indicated no significant differences between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries in terms of Grade III Clavien-Dindo complications, mortality, and anastomotic leakage. The diverse geographical origin of the studies suggests the applicability of the results across different health care settings, although system-specific considerations are essential.

CONCLUSION

Robotic approach does not show significant advantages over laparoscopic approach in terms of major complications and mortality rates in rectal cancer treatment, indicating that both surgical approaches are viable options with their specific benefits and limitations.

Laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

As life expectancy has been increasing, older patients are becoming more central to the healthcare system, leading to more intensive care use and longer hospital stays. Nevertheless, advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques offer safe and effective options for older patients with colorectal diseases. This study aims to provide comprehensive evidence on the role of minimally invasive surgery in treating colorectal diseases in older patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All articles directly compared the minimally invasive approach with open surgery in patients aged ≥65 years. The present metanalysis took 30-day complications as primary outcomes. Length of hospital stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality were also assessed, as secondary outcomes. Further subgroup analyses were carried out based on surgery setting, lesion features, and location.

RESULTS

After searching the main databases, 84 articles were included. Evaluation of 30-day complications rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality significantly favored minimally invasive approaches. The outcome readmission did not show any significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

The current metanalysis demonstrates clear advantages of minimally invasive techniques over open surgery in colorectal procedures for older patients, particularly in reducing complications, mortality, and hospitalization. This suggests that prioritizing these techniques, based on available expertise and facilities, could improve outcomes and quality of care for older patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Robotic surgery is associated with a decreased risk of circumferential resection margin positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer undergoing mesorectal excision: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether robotic surgery (RS) decreases the risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) in patients with rectal cancer (RC) undergoing mesorectal excision (ME).

BACKGROUND

Although it is well known that CRM positivity affects postoperative outcomes in patients with RC undergoing ME, few studies have investigated whether RS is superior to conventional LS for the risk of CRM positivity.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature up to December 2022 to identify studies that compared the risk of CRM positivity between patients with RC undergoing robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity was analyzed using I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies, consisting of 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 propensity score matching (PSM) studies, involved a total of 9203 patients with RC who underwent ME were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that RS decreased the overall risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.82; 95 % CI, 0.73-0.92; P = 0.001; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS. Results of a meta-analysis of the 4 selected RCTs also showed that RS decreased the risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.62; 95 % CI, 0.43-0.91; P = 0.01; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that RS is associated with a decreased risk of CRM positivity compared with conventional LS in patients with RC undergoing ME.

EAES/SAGES evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus on optimization of perioperative care in older adults

BACKGROUND

As the population ages, more older adults are presenting for surgery. Age-related declines in physiological reserve and functional capacity can result in frailty and poor outcomes after surgery. Hence, optimizing perioperative care in older patients is imperative. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) may influence surgical outcomes, but current use and impact on older adults patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative care of older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Expert consensus determined working definitions for key terms and metrics related to perioperative care. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for 24 pre-defined key questions in the topic areas of prehabilitation, MIS, and ERAS in major abdominal surgery (colorectal, upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Hernia, and hepatopancreatic biliary (HPB)) to generate evidence-based recommendations following the GRADE methodology.

RESULT

Older adults were defined as 65 years and older. Over 20,000 articles were initially retrieved from search parameters. Evidence synthesis was performed across the three topic areas from 172 studies, with meta-analyses conducted for MIS and ERAS topics. The use of MIS and ERAS was recommended for older adult patients particularly when undergoing colorectal surgery. Expert opinion recommended prehabilitation, cessation of smoking and alcohol, and correction of anemia in all colorectal, UGI, Hernia, and HPB procedures in older adults. All recommendations were conditional, with low to very low certainty of evidence, with the exception of ERAS program in colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS and ERAS are recommended in older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery, with evidence supporting use in colorectal surgery. Though expert opinion supported prehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence supporting use. This work has identified evidence gaps for further studies to optimize older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for elderly patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of matched studies

BACKGROUND

To compare clinical and survival outcomes between laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were systematically searched. The review included studies that were either randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational in design. STATA was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis was conducted with 24 studies. Compared with elderly subjects with open surgery, those undergoing laparoscopic surgery had a lower risk of mortality (within 3 months postoperatively) (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.94). The long-term overall survival (HR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.04), disease-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.13), risk of recurrence (RR 1.44, 95% CI: 0.90, 2.30) and readmission (RR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.88, 1.40) rates were statistically similar in both the groups. The operative time (in minutes) was higher (WMD 30.37, 95% CI: 17.75, 43.0) and the blood loss (in ml) was lower (WMD -78.85, 95% CI: -101.96, -55.75) in those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The length of hospital stay (in days) (WMD -2.53, 95% CI: -3.11, -1.95) and the time of return of bowel movements (in days) (WMD -1.06, 95% CI: -1.20, -0.93) was lower in those with laparoscopic surgery. The pooled risk of complications was lower in those with laparoscopic surgery (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.74), compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that in elderly subjects with colorectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery appears to be more beneficial than open surgery and should be prioritized, subject to the availability of required technical skills and facilities.

Operative and Survival Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Elderly and Very Elderly Patients: A Study in a Tertiary Hospital in South Korea

Materials and Methods

Data of all patients ≥75 years who underwent a robotic-assisted curative resection in Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, between January 2007 and January 2021 were extracted from a prospectively maintained colorectal cancer database. Patients were subdivided into the three groups according to the age: youngest-old (YO: 75–80 years), middle-old (MO: 81–85), and oldest-old (OO: ≥86 years). Intraoperative findings, postoperative, and oncological outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results

Seventy-six consecutive patients (female 52.6%) were included; mean age was 80 years (SD 0.33); mean body mass index (BMI), 23.8 20.9 kg/m² (SD 3.58); mean total operative time, 279 min (SD 80.93); mean blood loss, 186 ml (SD 204.03); mean postoperative length of stay, 14 days (SD 12.03). Major complications were seen in 2.1% of patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. Average number of lymph node harvested was 20.9 (SD 12.33). Postoperative complications were not statistically different between the groups. Mean follow-up time for cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 99.28 months for the YO, 72.11 months for MO, and 31.25 months for OO groups (p = 0.045). The CSS rates at 5 years were 27.0%, 21.0%, and 0%, respectively. Recurrence risk was 10.50 times higher in the OO group than the others (adjusted HR, 95% CI 1.868–59.047, p = 0.008). In the multivariable analysis, TNM stage was not a risk factor for CSS in all groups. The number of the harvested nodes was a protective factor for recurrence (HR of 0.932, 95% CI 0.875–0.992, p = 0.027) and CSS (HR of 0.928, 95% CI 0.861–0.999, p = 0.047) in elderly patients.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery is highly feasible in elderly and very elderly colorectal cancer patients, providing a favorable operative safety profile and an acceptable cancer-specific survival outcome.

Low anterior resection syndrome: can it be prevented?

Surgery remains the cardinal treatment in colorectal cancers but changes in bowel habits after rectal cancer surgery are common and disabling conditions that affect patients' quality of life. Low anterior resection syndrome is a disorder of bowel function after rectal resection resulting in a lowering of the QoL and recently has been defined by an international working group not only by specified symptoms but also by their consequences. This review aims to explore an extensive bibliographic research on preventive strategies for LARS. All "modifiable variables," quantified by the LARS Score, such as type of anastomosis, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical strategy, and diverting stoma, were evaluated, while "non-modifiable variables" such as age, sex, BMI, ASA, preoperative TMN, tumor height, and type of mesorectal excision were excluded from the comparative analysis. The role of defunctioning stoma, local excision, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and non operative management seems to significantly affect risk of LARS, while type of anastomosis and surgical TME approach do not impact on LARS incidence or gravity in the long term period. Although it is established that some variables are associated with a greater onset of LARS, in clinical practice, technical difficulties and oncological limits often make difficult the application of some prevention plans. Transtomal irrigations, intraoperative neuromonitoring, pelvic floor rehabilitation before stoma closure, and early transanal irrigation represent new arguments of study in preventive strategies which could, if not eliminate the symptoms, at least mitigate them.