Open versus minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center cohort study on 237 consecutive patients

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted vs Open Surgery for Patients With Low Rectal Cancer: The LASRE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The efficacy of laparoscopic vs open surgery for patients with low rectal cancer has not been established.

Objective

To compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for treatment of low rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted in 22 tertiary hospitals across China. Patients scheduled for curative-intent resection of low rectal cancer were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open surgery. Between November 2013 and June 2018, 1070 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 712) or open (n = 358) surgery. The planned follow-up was 5 years. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to March 2022.

Interventions

Eligible patients were randomized to receive either laparoscopic or open surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The short-term outcomes included pathologic outcomes, surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, and 30-day postoperative complications and mortality.

Results

A total of 1039 patients (685 in laparoscopic and 354 in open surgery) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median [range] age, 57 [20-75] years; 620 men [59.7%]; clinical TNM stage II/III disease in 659 patients). The rate of complete mesorectal excision was 85.3% (521 of 685) in the laparoscopic group vs 85.8% (266 of 354) in the open group (difference, -0.5%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 4.5%; P = .78). The rate of negative circumferential and distal resection margins was 98.2% (673 of 685) vs 99.7% (353 of 354) (difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 0.0%; P = .09) and 99.4% (681 of 685) vs 100% (354 of 354) (difference, -0.6%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 0.5%; P = .36), respectively. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 13.0 vs 12.0 (difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.1-1.9; P = .39). The laparoscopic group had a higher rate of sphincter preservation (491 of 685 [71.7%] vs 230 of 354 [65.0%]; difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 0.8%-12.8%; P = .03) and shorter duration of hospitalization (8.0 vs 9.0 days; difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3; P = .008). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications rate between the 2 groups (89 of 685 [13.0%] vs 61 of 354 [17.2%]; difference, -4.2%; 95% CI, -9.1% to -0.3%; P = .07). No patient died within 30 days.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with low rectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery performed by experienced surgeons was shown to provide pathologic outcomes comparable to open surgery, with a higher sphincter preservation rate and favorable postoperative recovery.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899547.

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.

Robotic Surgery in Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The most effective and curative treatment is surgery, and the standard procedure is total mesorectal excision, initially performed by open surgery and posteriorly by minimally invasive techniques. Robotic surgery is an emerging technology that is expected to overcome the limitations of the laparoscopic approach. It has several advantages, including a stable camera platform with high definition three-dimensional image, flexible instruments with seven degrees of freedom, a third arm for fixed retraction, fine motion scaling, excellent dexterity, ambidextrous capability, elimination of physiological tremors and better ergonomics, that facilitate a steady and precise tissue dissection. The main technical disadvantages are the loss of tactile sensation and tensile feedback and the complex installation process. The aim of the present study is to review the importance and benefits of robotic surgery in rectal cancer, particularly in comparison with the laparoscopic approach. Intraoperative estimated blood loss, short and long-term outcomes as well as pathological outcomes were similar between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The operative time is usually longer in robotic surgery and the high costs are still its major drawback. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer demonstrated lower conversion rate to open surgery and benefits in urinary and sexual functions and has been established as a safe and feasible technique.

Robotic rectal resection: oncologic outcomes

Robotic surgery has progressively gained popularity in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, only a few studies on its oncologic effectiveness are currently present, with contrasting results. The purpose of this study is to report a single surgeon’s experience on robotic rectal resection (RRR) for cancer, focusing on the analysis of oncologic outcomes, both in terms of pathological features and long-term results. One-hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients who underwent RRR for rectal cancer from January 2013 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes were collected. The analyzed oncologic outcomes were pathological features [distal (DM), circumferential margin (CRM) status and quality of mesorectal excision (TME)] and long-term outcomes [overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)]. The mean operative time was 275 (± 60.5) minutes. Conversion rate was 6.6%. Complications occurred in 27 cases (22.1%) and reoperation was needed in 2 patients (1.5%). The median follow-up was 30.5 (5.9–86.1) months. None presented DM positivity. CRM positivity was 2.5% (2 cases) while a complete TME was reached in 94.3% of cases (115 patients). Recurrence rate was 5.7% (2 local, 4 distant and 1 local plus distant tumor relapse). OS and DFS were 90.7% and 83%, respectively. At the multivariate analysis, both CRM positivity and near complete/incomplete TME were recognized as negative prognostic factors for OS and DFS. Under appropriate logistic and operative conditions, robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be oncologically effective, with adequate pathological results and long-term outcomes. It also offers acceptable peri-operative outcomes, further confirming the safety and feasibility of the technique.

The financial burden of complications following rectal resection: A cohort study

To investigate the costs associated with postoperative complications following rectal resection.Rectal resection is a major surgical procedure that carries a significant risk of complications. The occurrence of complications following surgery has both health and financial consequences. There are very few studies that examine the incidence and severity of complications and their financial implications following rectal resection.We identified 381 consecutive patients who underwent a rectal resection within a major university hospital. Patients were included using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Complications in the postoperative period were reported using the validated Clavien-Dindo classification system. Both the number and severity of complications were recorded. Activity-based costing methodology was used to report financial outcomes. Preoperative results were also recorded and assessed.A 76.9% [95% CI: 68.3:86.2] of patients experienced one or more complications. Patients who had a complication had a median total cost of $22,567 [IQR 16,607:33,641]. Patients who did not have a complication had a median total cost of $15,882 [IQR 12,971:19,861]. The adjusted additional median cost for patients who had a complication was $5308 [95% CI: 2938:7678] (P < .001). Patients who experienced a complication tended to undergo an open procedure (P = .001), were emergent patients (P = .003), preoperatively had lower albumin levels (36 vs 38, P = .0003) and were anemic (P = .001).Complications following rectal resection are common and are associated with increased costs. Our study highlights the importance of evaluating and preventing complications in the postoperative period.

Combined robotic approach and enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for optimization of costs in patients undergoing proctectomy

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are beneficial in proctocolectomy, but their impact on robotic low rectal proctectomy is not fully investigated. This study assessed the impact of an ERAS pathway on the outcomes and cost of robotic (RTME) versus laparoscopic (LTME) total mesorectal excision.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of patients with rectal cancer in a single French tertiary centre for three yearly periods: 2011, LTME; 2015, RTME; and 2018, RTME with ERAS. Patient characteristics, operative and postoperative data, and costs were compared among the groups.

Results

A total of 220 consecutive proctectomies were analysed (71 LTME, 58 RTME and 91 RTME with ERAS). A prevalence of lower and locally advanced tumours was observed with RTME. The median duration of surgery increased with the introduction of RTME, but became shorter than that for LTME with greater robotic experience (226, 233 and 180 min for 2011, 2015 and 2018 respectively; P < 0·001). The median duration of hospital stay decreased significantly for RTME with ERAS (11, 10 and 8 days respectively; P = 0·011), as did the overall morbidity rate (39, 38 and 16 per cent; P = 0·002). Pathology results, conversion and defunctioning stoma rates remained stable. RTME alone increased the total cost by €2348 compared with LTME. The introduction of ERAS and improved robotic experience decreased costs by €1960, compared with RTME performed in 2015 without ERAS implementation. In patients with no co‐morbidity, costs decreased by €596 for RTME with ERAS versus LTME alone.

Conclusion

ERAS is associated with cost reductions in patients undergoing robotic proctectomy.

An observational study of patho-oncological outcomes of various surgical methods in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single center analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with or without neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the treatment for rectal cancer (RC). Recently, the use of conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic-assisted surgery (RS) has been on a steady increase cases. However, various oncological outcomes from different surgical approaches are still under investigation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study comprising 300 consecutive RC patients who underwent various techniques of TME (RS, n = 88; LS, n = 37; Open surgery, n = 175) at a single center of real world data to compare the pathological and oncological outcomes, with a median follow-up of 48 months.

RESULTS

Upon multivariate analysis, histologic grade (P = 0.016), and stage (P < 0.001) were the independent factors of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis determined RS, early pathologic stage, negative CRM involvement, and pathologic complete response to be significantly associated with better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (all P < 0.05). Multivariable analyses observed the surgical method (P = 0.037), histologic grade (P = 0.006), and CRM involvement (P = 0.043) were the independent factors of DFS, whereas histologic grade (P = 0.011) and pathologic stage (P = 0.022) were the independent prognostic variables of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined that RS TME is feasible because it has less CRM involvement and better oncological outcomes than the alternatives have. The significant factors influencing CRM and prognosis depended on the histologic grade, tumor depth, and pre-operative CCRT. RS might be an acceptable option owing to the favorable oncological outcomes for patients with RC undergoing TME.