Robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer

A Review of the Current Trends and Future Perspectives of Robots in Colorectal Surgery: What Have We Got Ourselves Into?

Robotic colorectal surgery represents a significant advancement in the management of complex colorectal conditions, offering enhanced precision, safety, and improved patient outcomes. It is widely utilised for colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticular disease, and rectal prolapse, with key benefits such as 3D visualisation, superior dexterity, and precise navigation in confined spaces. These advantages contribute to lower conversion rates to open surgery, faster recovery, reduced pain, and shorter hospital stays. This narrative review analysed recent peer-reviewed literature, focusing on technological advancements, clinical outcomes, and emerging challenges in robotic colorectal surgery. Findings highlight improved oncological precision, faster recovery, and fewer complications, driven by innovations like AI-guided decision-making and advanced robotic platforms. However, issues such as prolonged operative times, high costs, and steep learning curves remain. Future efforts should prioritise integrating AI, enhancing surgeon training, and addressing cost barriers to maximise the potential of robotic colorectal surgery in improving patient care.

Posterior mesorectal thickness as a predictor of increased operative time in rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In rectal cancer surgery, larger mesorectal fat area has been shown to correlate with increased intraoperative difficulty. Prior studies were mostly in Asian populations with average body mass indices (BMIs) less than 25 kg/m². This study aimed to define the relationship between radiological variables on pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative difficulty in a North American population.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study analyzing all patients who underwent low anterior resection (LAR) or transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2015 until December 2019. Eleven pelvic magnetic resonance imaging measures were defined a priori according to previous literature and measured in each of the included patients. Operative time in minutes and intraoperative blood loss in milliliters were utilized as the primary indicators of intraoperative difficulty.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients (39.8% female, mean age: 62.4 ± 11.6 years) met inclusion criteria. The mean BMI of included patients was 29.4 ± 6.2 kg/m². Mean operative times were 227.2 ± 65.1 min and 340.6 ± 78.7 min for LARs and TaTMEs, respectively. On multivariable analysis including patient, tumor, and MRI factors, increasing posterior mesorectal thickness was significantly associated with increased operative time (p = 0.04). Every 1 cm increase in posterior mesorectal thickness correlated with a 26 min and 6 s increase in operative time. None of the MRI measurements correlated strongly with BMI.

CONCLUSION

As the number of obese rectal cancer patients continues to expand, strategies aimed at optimizing their surgical management are paramount. While increasing BMI is an important preoperative risk factor, the present study identifies posterior mesorectal thickness on MRI as a reliable and easily measurable parameter to help predict operative difficulty. Ultimately, this may in turn serve as an indicator of which patients would benefit most from pre-operative resources aimed at optimizing operative conditions and postoperative recovery.

Colorectal cancer surgery: by Cambridge Medical Robotics Versius Surgical Robot System-a single-institution study. Our experience

With the previous experiences in performing laparoscopic for over a period of 15 years and da Vinci colorectal surgeries from 2010 to 2013, we started operating using the Cambridge Medical Robotics (CMR) Versius Surgical Robot System. The aim of the study is a prospective analysis and evaluation of short-term results of consecutive patients to study the technical feasibility and oncological outcome of robot-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) and ultralow anterior resection (ULAR), using the CMR Versius Surgical Robot System. This study was conducted at single minimal access surgery institute. 31 patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent robot-assisted LAR and ULAR between August 2019 and March 2020. Patient characteristics, perioperative parameters and complications were evaluated. Surgical and pathological outcomes such as quality of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME), free circumferential resection margins and number of lymph nodes dissected were also evaluated. Of 31 patients, 23 were men and 8 women, with mean age of 55.6 years. The mean robotic operative time was 51 min and the mean blood loss was 55 ml. The mean robot docking and undocking time was 17 min and 5 min, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 7 days. The longitudinal and circumferential resection margins were negative in all patients. Histopathological reports of 27 among 31 patients showed complete TME. Splenic flexure of colon mobilization was done laparoscopically. We feel that Versius robot has the qualities in terms of dexterity, vision and intuitive movements, and to translate this technical ability into oncological safety.

A Snapshot of the International Views of the Treatment of Rectal Cancer Patients, a Multi-regional Survey: International Tendencies in Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Management of rectal cancer has a number of potentially appropriate alternatives for each patient. Despite acceptance of standards, practices may vary among regions. There is significant paucity of data in this area. The objective was to create a snapshot of the regional differences.

DESIGN

This online survey included 10 questions. Enquiries focused on controversial topics, on surgeon and hospital volume, surgical margins, appropriateness of surgical approaches and techniques, watch-and-wait strategies, and total neoadjuvant therapy. Major colorectal surgery societies around the world were asked to invite their members to complete the survey.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency of responses across regions within each question was compared by Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and fifty-three participants from 60 countries responded. Eight regions were identified, and four had sufficient representation for comparisons. Similarities and differences in the therapies among these regions were identified. Robotic surgery penetrance is higher in North America, and watch and wait is more accepted in South America. Patients in Oceania are more likely to be diverted; Europe has more usage of taTME.

DISCUSSION

This online survey was practical as a mean to provide a rapid assessment of the international picture on consistency and variability of rectal cancer patients' care, and to potentially identify opportunities to standardized care to patients. Medical surveys have inherent limitations; pertinence to our study is selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of rectal cancer varies among different regions. Identification of differences is important when considering global efforts to improve management and interpret data.

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.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Although laparoscopic resection for colon cancer has been proven safe and feasible when compared with open resection, currently no clear evidence is available regarding minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. This type of surgery may benefit patients by allowing fast recovery of normal dietary intake and bowel function, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospitalization. Therefore, minimally invasive surgeries such as laparoscopic or robot surgery have become the predominant treatment option for colon cancer. Specifically, the proportion of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in Korea increased from 42.6 to 64.7% until 2013. However, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is more difficult and technically demanding. In addition, the procedure requires a prolonged learning curve to achieve equivalent outcomes relative to open surgery. It is very challenging to approach the deep and narrow pelvis using laparoscopic instruments. However, robotic surgery provides better vision with a high definition three-dimensional view, exceptional ergonomics, Endowrist technology, enhanced dexterity of movement, and a lack of physiologic tremor, facilitated by the use of an assistant in the narrow and deep pelvis. Recently, an increasing number of reports have compared the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer. Such reports have prompted a discussion of the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery, including robotic surgery, for rectal cancer. The aim of this review is to summarize current data regarding the clinical outcomes, including oncologic outcomes, of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide recommendations for clinical practice and prevention of postoperative complications, such as circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, and compare the amount of intraoperative bleeding, safety, operative time, recovery, outcomes, and clinical significance of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures in anus-preserving rectal cancer.

Methods

A literature search (PubMed) was performed to identify biomedical research papers and abstracts of studies comparing robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures. We attempted to obtain the full-text link for papers published between 2000 and 2016, and hand-searched references for relevant literature. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Nine papers (949 patients) were eligible for inclusion; there were 473 patients (49.8%) in the robotic group and 476 patients (50.2%) in the laparoscopic group. According to the data provided in the literature, seven indicators were used to complete the evaluation. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that robot-assisted procedure was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] −41.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] −77.51, −4.79; P=0.03), lower open conversion rate (risk difference [RD] −0.05; 95% CI −0.09, −0.01; P=0.02), lower hospital stay (MD −1.07; 95% CI −1.80, −0.33; P=0.005), lower overall complication rate (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.41, 0.83; P=0.003), and longer operative time (MD 33.73; 95% CI 8.48, 58.99; P=0.009) compared with conventional laparoscopy. There were no differences in the rate of CRM involvement (RD −0.02; 95% CI −0.05, 0.01; P=0.23) and days to return of bowel function (MD −0.03; 95% CI −0.40, 0.34; P=0.89).

Conclusion

The Da Vinci robot was superior to laparoscopy with respect to blood loss, open conversion, hospital stay, and postoperative complications during anus-preserving rectal cancer procedures; however, conventional laparoscopy had an advantage regarding operative time. The remaining indicators (CRMs and recovery from intestinal peristalsis) did not differ.

Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results, postoperative outcomes, and cost of robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy and determine its safety, feasibility, and efficacy as compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

From August 2005 to February 2009, 40 robot-assisted right hemicolectomies were performed by the authors at a single institution. These were compared with 135 laparoscopic right hemicolectomies performed by the authors, at the same hospital and during the same time period. Cost data from July 2006 until the end of the study period were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists' class, history of prior abdominal surgery, and diagnosis. There was no significant difference in the lymph node harvest, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, length of stay, or incidence of complications and wound infection between the 2 groups. A robotic procedure was associated with a longer operative time (P < .001) and a higher cost (P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy is safe and feasible but is associated with a longer operative time and, at present, with a higher cost compared with laparoscopy. However, right hemicolectomy serves as an ideal procedure to begin the learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery, which can subsequently progress to robotic rectal resections where the robot has the greatest potential for benefit.

Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to compare the short-term results between robotic-assisted low anterior resection (R-LAR), using the da Vinci Surgical System, and standard laparoscopic low anterior resection (L-LAR) in rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

113 patients were assigned to receive either R-LAR (n = 56) or L-LAR (n = 57) between April 2006 and September 2007. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, complications, and pathologic details were compared between the groups. Moreover, macroscopic grading of the specimen was evaluated.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups. The mean operation time was 190.1 +/- 45.0 min in the R-LAR group and 191.1 +/- 65.3 min in the L-LAR group (P = 0.924). The conversion rate was 0.0% in the R-LAR groups and 10.5% in the L-LAR group (P = 0.013). The serious complication rate was 5.4% in the R-LAR group and 19.3% in the L-LAR group (P = 0.025). The specimen quality was acceptable in both groups. However, the mesorectal grade was complete (n = 52) and nearly complete (n = 4) in the R-LAR group and complete (n = 43), nearly complete (n = 12), and incomplete (n = 2) in the L-LAR group (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

R-LAR was performed safely and effectively, using the da Vinci Surgical System. The use of the system resulted in acceptable perioperative outcomes compared to L-LAR.

Full robotic left colon and rectal cancer resection: technique and early outcome

OBJECTIVE

The technique for robotic resection of the left colon and anterior resection of the rectum with total mesorectal excision is not well defined. In this study we describe a method that standardizes robot and trocar position, and allows for a complete mobilization of the left colon and the rectum, without repositioning of the surgical cart. Outcome and pathology findings are also reported.

METHODS

From January 2007 to May 2008 a total of 55 consecutive patients affected by rectal and left colon cancer were operated on, with full robotic technique, using the Da Vinci robot. Data regarding outcome and pathology reports were prospectively collected in a dedicated database.

RESULTS

The following procedures were performed 27 left colectomies, 17 anterior resections, 4 intersphincteric resections, 7 abdominoperineal resections. There were 21 female and 34 male patients with a mean age of 63 +/- 9.9 years. Mean operative time was 290 +/- 69 minutes, ranging from 164 to 487 min., none were converted to open surgery. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 18.5 +/- 8.3 (range 5-45), and circumferential margin was negative in all cases. Distal margin was 25.15 +/- 12.9 mm (range 6-55) for patients with rectal cancer, and 31.6 +/- 20 mm for all the patients in this series. Anastomotic leak rate was 12.7% (7/55); in all cases conservative treatment was successful.

CONCLUSIONS

Full robotic colorectal surgery is a safe and effective technique that exploits the advantages of the Da Vinci robot during the whole intervention, without the need to make use of hybrid operations. Outcome and pathology findings are comparable with those observed in open and laparoscopy procedures.

Robotic colorectal surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery has gradually been performed more with the help of the technological advantages of the da Vinci system. Advanced technological advantages of the da Vinci system compared with standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been reported. These are a stable camera platform, three-dimensional imaging, excellent ergonomics, tremor elimination, ambidextrous capability, motion scaling, and instruments with multiple degrees of freedom. However, despite these technological advantages, most studies did not report the clinical advantages of robotic colorectal surgery compared to standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Only one study recently implies the real benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery. The purpose of this review article is to outline the early concerns of robotic colorectal surgery using the da Vinci system, to present early clinical outcomes from the most current series, and to discuss not only the safety and the feasibility but also the real benefits of robotic colorectal surgery. Moreover, this article will comment on the possible future clinical advantages and limitations of the da Vinci system in robotic colorectal surgery.

Robotic colorectal surgery: first 50 cases experience

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is believed to be technically and oncologically feasible. However, some limitation of traditional laparoscopic surgery may cause difficulties. Robotic-assisted surgery may overcome these pitfalls.

METHODS

From December 2005 to July 2007, 50 patients were selected for robotic-assisted colorectal resection mainly for cancer.

RESULTS

Of the 50 patients enrolled, 32 (64 percent) were men and 18 (36 percent) were women. Their mean age was 66.7 (range, 37-92) years. The American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) class distribution was 13 (26 percent) ASA I, 24 (48 percent) ASA II, 12 (24 percent) ASA III, and 1 (2 percent) ASA IV. Forty-four patients suffered from cancer and six patients from benign disease. Amongst the cancer patients, 3 percent were at UICC (International Union Against Cancer) Stage 0, 36 percent at UICC Stage I, 24 percent at Stage II, 28 percent at Stage III, and 9 percent at Stage IV. The global conversion rate was 4 percent. The mean operative time was 338.8 minutes. It decreased as the experience increased (419 minutes in the first 20 cases vs. 346 minutes in the last 30 cases; P = 0.036). As a gross comparison, the results of a coeval standard laparoscopy group of patients were shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic laparoscopic colon surgery is feasible and safe. A longer operating time is needed.