TME for rectal cancer: consecutive 70 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique-cumulative experience in a single centre

The role of robotic-assisted surgery in the management of rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer poses a significant global health burden. There is a lack of concrete evidence concerning the benefits of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for rectal cancer surgery as compared to laparoscopic and open techniques. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the intraoperative, postoperative, and safety outcomes of robotic surgery in this context.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A search of MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Randomized and non-randomized studies up to February 2, 2024 comparing robotic surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery for rectal cancer. The outcomes of interest were operative time, blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, conversion rate, postoperative hospital stay, survival to hospital discharge, urinary retention rate, and anastomotic leakage rate. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool means and dichotomous data to derive weighted mean differences and odds ratios, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were shortlisted after the study selection process with a total of 25 458 rectal cancer patients. From the intraoperative outcomes, RAS was significantly associated with an increased operative time (WMD: 41.04, P <0.00001), decreased blood loss (WMD: -24.56, P <0.00001), decreased conversion rates (OR: 0.39, P <0.00001), lesser stay at the hospital (WMD: -1.93, P <0.00001), and no difference was found in lymph nodes harvested. Similarly, RAS group had a significantly greater survival to hospital discharge (OR: 1.90, P =0.04), decreased urinary retention rate (OR: 0.59, P =0.002), and no difference was seen in anastomotic leakage rate.

CONCLUSION

RAS demonstrates favorable outcomes for rectal cancer patients, contributing to global prevention and control efforts, health promotion, and addressing non-communicable disease risk factors. Further research and public awareness are needed to optimize RAS utilization in this context.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer resection.

Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer in patients with varied body mass indexes: evaluating of short-term outcomes

The main aim of this study was to evaluate and contrast the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures in the treatment of low and mid rectal cancer in different BMI (body mass index) groups. The clinical records of patients who had laparoscopic or robotic proctectomy at a single center between December 2019 and August 2023 were analyzed. Then we utilized a classification framework to categorize individuals based on their BMI into three unique groups: non-obese, overweight, and obese. The short-term efficacy was evaluated. A consecutive sample of 1413 patients was included in this retrospective investigation. 1158 people out of the total sample chose laparoscopic surgery, whereas 255 people chose robotic surgery. In the group of obese people, robotic surgery showed a statistically significant decrease in blood loss compared to laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.026). People who were overweight or obese were in the hospital for a shorter amount of time after robotic surgery than after laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.033 and P = 0.031, respectively). People with different BMIs in the robotic surgery group took less time to have a flatus passage and oral intake those in the laparoscopic surgery group. Oncological outcomes and the frequency of complications were comparable between the two treatments with different BMIs. Surgical resection of patients undergoing low-anterior surgery may benefit from a robotic approach, particularly in overweight and obese patients.

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.

[Robot-assisted rectal resections-Scoping review for level 1a evidence and retrospective analysis of in-clinic data]

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted rectal resections are said to overcome the known difficulties of laparoscopic rectal surgery through technical advantages, leading to better treatment results; however, published studies reported very heterogeneous results. The aim of this paper is therefore to determine whether there is class 1a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resections. Furthermore, we would like to compare the treatment results of our clinic with the calculated effects from the literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search for class 1a evidence was performed and the calculated effects for 7 preselected outcomes were compared. We then analyzed all elective rectal resections performed in our hospital between 2017 and 2020 and compared the treatment outcomes with the results of the identified meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The results of the 7 identified meta-analyses did not show homogeneous effects for the outcomes operating time and conversion rate, while the calculated effects of the other outcomes studied were largely consistent. Our patient data showed that robotic rectal resections were associated with significantly longer operation times, while the other outcomes were hardly influenced by the surgical technique.

DISCUSSION

Although class 1a meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections already exist, they do not enable an evidence-based recommendation regarding the preference of one of the two surgical techniques. The analysis of our patient data showed that the results achieved in our clinic are largely consistent with the observed effects of the meta-analyses.

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.

Role of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in colorectal neoplasms

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is especially suitable for colorectal surgery. Until now, most of the reports published were about laparoscopic NOSES, the reports about robotic NOSES are extremely rare. This study aims to explore the safety and feasibility of robotic NOSES for colorectal neoplasms. All patients underwent robotic NOSES from March 2016 to October 2019 in our hospital were enrolled for retrospective analysis. Clinicopathological data including patient characteristics, perioperative information and pathological information were collected and analyzed. According to the distance between tumor and anus or whether neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nRCT) is performed, we grouped the cases and studied its influence on robotic NOSES. Also, we compared the previous reports on laparoscopic NOSES with our study and revealed advantages of robotic NOSES in terms of safety and feasibility. A total of 180 patients were enrolled. The average distance from the lower edge of the tumor to the anus was (8.64 ± 3.64) cm and maximum circumferential diameter (CDmax) of specimen was (3.5 ± 1.6) cm. In terms of safety, the average operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were (187.5 ± 78.3) min, (47.4 ± 34) mL, and (11.3 ± 7.5) days, respectively. In terms of feasibility, the average number of lymph node harvested was (14.8 ± 5). Robotic NOSES shows advantages in terms of safety and feasibility compared with laparoscopic NOSES. This procedure could not only be a safe procedure but also could achieve good oncological outcomes.

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.

The severity of postoperative complications after robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

OBJECTIVE

Robotic surgery (RS) has been increasingly used for the resection of rectal cancer, and its advantages over laparoscopic surgery (LS) have been demonstrated. However, few studies focused on the severity of postoperative complications. This study aimed to compared the postoperative complications within 30 days after RS over LS according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification.

METHODS

A literature research of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically performed. The studies comparing the complications of RS and LS for rectal cancer based on the C-D classification were enrolled. Primary outcomes were C-D grade III, IV, V, III-V (severe complications).

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (3193 patients) were included in the final analysis: 1554 underwent RS and 1639 underwent LS. The RS group was associated with significantly lower rates of severe complications (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90, P = 0.005), C-D grade IV (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90, P = 0.005), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.91, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in C-D grade III, C-D grade I, II, I-II (minor complications), overall complications, bleeding, wound complications, postoperative ileus, urinary retention, readmission, reoperation between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is safe for rectal cancer and may be an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery, with lower rates of severe complications, C-D grade IV, and anastomotic leak. Further large randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this conclusion.