Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparative study of short and long-term outcomes

Local recurrence of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre cohort study evaluating the initial cases

PURPOSE

Evidence regarding local recurrence rates in the initial cases after implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is limited. This study aims to describe local recurrence rates in four large Dutch centres during their initial cases.

METHODS

Four large Dutch centres started with the implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision in respectively 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016. Patients who underwent robot-assisted total mesorectal excision with curative intent in an elective setting for rectal carcinoma defined according to the sigmoid take-off were included. Overall survival, disease-free survival, systemic recurrence, and local recurrence were assessed at 3 years postoperatively. Subsequently, outcomes between the initial 10 cases, cases 11-40, and the subsequent cases per surgeon were compared using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 531 patients were included. Median follow-up time was 32 months (IQR: 19-50]. During the initial 10 cases, overall survival was 89.5%, disease-free survival was 73.1%, and local recurrence was 4.9%. During cases 11-40, this was 87.7%, 74.1%, and 6.6% respectively. Multivariable Cox regression did not reveal differences in local recurrence between the different case groups.

CONCLUSION

Local recurrence rate during the initial phases of implantation of robot-assisted total mesorectal procedures is low. Implementation of the robot-assisted technique can safely be performed, without additional cases of local recurrence during the initial cases, if performed by surgeons experienced in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

National disparities in use of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in older adults

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is safe and improves outcomes in older persons with rectal cancer but may be underutilized. As older persons are the largest surgical population, investigation of the current use and factors impacting MIS use is warranted. Our goal is to investigate the trends and disparities that affect utilization of MIS in older persons with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was reviewed for persons 65 years and older who underwent curative resection for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2017. Cases were stratified by surgical approach (open or MIS [laparoscopic or robotic]). Univariate analysis compared patient and provider demographics across approaches. Multivariate analysis investigated variables associated with MIS use. Main outcome measures were trends and factors associated with MIS use in older persons.

RESULTS

Of 31,910 patients analyzed, 51.9% (n = 16,555) were open and 48.1% (n = 15,355) MIS. The MIS cohort was 66.7% (n = 10,236) laparoscopic and 33.3% (n = 5119) robotic. MIS increased from 29% in 2010 (n = 1197; 25% laparoscopic, 4% robotic) to 65% in 2017 (n = 2382; 35% laparoscopic, 30% robotic), likely from annual increases in robotics (OR 1.24/year, p < 0.0001). In the unadjusted analysis, there were significant differences in MIS use by age, race, comorbidity, socioeconomic status, and facility type. In multivariate analysis, patients with advancing age (OR 0.93, p < 0.001), major comorbidity (OR 0.75, p < 0.001), total proctectomy (OR0.78, p < 0.001), and advanced pathologic stage (OR 0.51, p < 0.001) were less likely to undergo MIS.

CONCLUSION

Nationwide, less than half of rectal cancer cases in older persons were performed with MIS, despite steady robotic growth. Patient and facility factors impacted MIS use. Further work on regionalizing rectal cancer care and ensuring equitable MIS access and training could improve utilization.

Robot Surgery Shows Similar Long-term Oncologic Outcomes as Laparoscopic Surgery for Mid/Lower Rectal Cancer but Is Beneficial to ypT3/4 After Preoperative Chemoradiation

BACKGROUND

The long-term oncologic efficacy of robotic surgery for patients with rectal cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate survival outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision for mid/low rectal cancer compared with those of laparoscopic surgery.

DESIGN

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis.

SETTING

The data of a tertiary academic institution was reviewed.

PATIENTS

A total of 705 patients underwent laparoscopic (n = 415) or robotic (n = 118) low anterior resection for stage I to III mid/low rectal cancer. A total of 118 patients in each group were selected from the original data set by using propensity score matching.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were 5-year disease-free survival, distant recurrence, and local recurrence.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were balanced in terms of basic characteristics, perioperative treatment, and pathological stage. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 80.5% in the laparoscopic group and 87.6% in the robotic group (p = 0.118). The 5-year distant recurrence rate and local recurrence rate were 19.0% and 4.2% in the laparoscopic group and 10.0% and 3.7% in the robotic group (p = 0.048 and p = 0.846). In a subgroup of patients who received preoperative chemoradiation and had ypT3/4 tumors, the 5-year distant recurrence and local recurrence rates were 44.8% and 5.0% in the laparoscopic group and 9.8% and 9.8% in the robotic group (p = 0.014 and p = 0.597).

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective nature of the study, potential selection bias with distinct demographics between the groups, and relatively small number of cases are limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for mid/low rectal cancer shows similar long-term oncologic outcomes with laparoscopic surgery but is beneficial to a certain group of patients with advanced rectal cancer with poor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Additional studies are required to confirm our results. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B546.

LA CIRUGA ROBTICA MUESTRA RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS A LARGO PLAZO SIMILARES A LA CIRUGA LAPAROSCPICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO MEDIO / BAJO, PERO ES VENTAJOSA EN CASOS YPT POSTQUIMIORADIOTERAPIA PREOPERATORIA

ANTECEDENTES:Se desconoce la eficacia oncológica a largo plazo de la cirugía robótica en pacientes con cáncer de recto.OBJETIVO:La finalidad de nuestro estudio fue el investigar los resultados de supervivencia de la escisión mesorrectal total robótica en casos de cáncer de recto medio / bajo en comparación con los de la cirugía laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Realizamos un análisis retrospectivo mono-céntrico.AJUSTE:Se revisaron los datos de una institución académica terciaria.PACIENTES:705 pacientes fueron sometidos a resección anterior baja laparoscópica (n = 415) o robótica (n = 118) para cáncer de recto medio / bajo en estadio I-III. Se seleccionó un total de 118 pacientes en cada grupo del conjunto de datos original utilizando el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión.RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:Éstos fueron, la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años, la recurrencia a distancia y la recurrencia local.RESULTADOS:Los dos grupos estaban equilibrados en cuanto a características básicas, tratamiento péri-operatorio y estadío patológico. La tasa de sobrevida libre de enfermedad a 5 años fue del 80,5% en el grupo laparoscópico y del 87,6% en el grupo robótico (p = 0,118). La tasa de recurrencia a distancia a 5 años y la tasa de recurrencia local fueron 19,0% y 4,2% en el grupo laparoscópico y 10,0% y 3,7% en el grupo robótico, respectivamente (p = 0,048 y p= 0,846). En el subgrupo de pacientes que recibieron quimio-radioterapia pré-operatoria y tenían tumores ypT3-4, las tasas de recidiva a distancia a 5 años y recidiva local fueron 44,8% y 5,0% en el grupo laparoscópico y 9,8% y 9,8% en el grupo robótico, respectivamente (p = 0.014 y p = 0.597).LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva del estudio, el posible sesgo en la selección con datos demográficos distintos entre los grupos y un número relativamente pequeño de casos son limitaciones importantes.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía robótica para el cáncer de recto medio / bajo muestra resultados oncológicos a largo plazo similares con la cirugía laparoscópica, pero es mas beneficiosa en ciertos grupos de cáncer de recto avanzado con mala respuesta a la quimio-radioterapia neoadyuvante. Se requieren más estudios para confirmar nuestros resultados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B546.).

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

AIMS

This study analyzed the oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

METHODS

We enrolled 109 consecutive patients with stage II-III rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted TME after neoadjuvant CCRT at one hospital between July 2013 and June 2018.

RESULTS

All 109 patients underwent preoperative CCRT. Of them, 37 (33.9%) achieved a pathologic complete response, and 29 (26.6%) experienced relapse, with local recurrence in 9 (8.3%) and distant metastasis in 20 (18.3%). R0 resection was performed in 104 (95.7%) patients; however, 7 (6.7%) of them developed local recurrence and 17 (16.3%) developed distant metastasis. Over a median follow-up of 42 months, the 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 73.4% and 87.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted TME after neoadjuvant CCRT is safe and effective for treating patients with stage II-III rectal cancer in one institution with acceptable short-term oncological outcomes. It may be a therapeutic alternative to salvage surgery for T4 tumors invading adjacent organs, such as the bladder, prostate, and uterus.

Feasibility of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although surgical resection is the main treatment for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical protocol for elderly patients with rectal cancer remains controversial. This study evaluated the feasibility of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 156 patients aged 28-93 years diagnosed with Stage I-III rectal cancer, who underwent robot-assisted surgery between May 2013 and December 2018 at a single institution.

RESULTS

In total, 156 patients with rectal cancer, including 126 non-elderly (aged < 70 years) and 30 elderly (aged ≥70 years) patients, who underwent robot-assisted surgery were recruited. Between the patient groups, the post-operative length of hospital stay did not differ statistically significantly (P = 0.084). The incidence of overall post-operative complications was statistically significantly lower in the elderly group (P = 0.002). The disease-free and overall survival did not differ statistically significantly between the two groups (P = 0.719 and 0.390, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer was well tolerated by elderly patients, with similar results to the non-elderly patients. Oncological outcomes and survival did not depend on patient age, suggesting that robot-assisted surgery is a feasible surgical modality for treating operable rectal cancer and leads to age-independent post-operative outcomes in elderly patients.

Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The application of robotic surgery for rectal cancer is increasing steadily. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare pathologic outcomes among patients with rectal cancer who underwent open rectal surgery (ORS) versus robotic rectal surgery (RRS).

Methods

We systematically searched the literature of EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) comparing ORS with RRS.

Results

Fourteen nRCTs, including 2711 patients met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.16, P = 0.13), number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD: −0.31, 95% CI, −2.16 to 1.53, P = 0.74), complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rates (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.78, P = 0.83) and the length of distal resection margins (DRM) (WMD: −0.01, 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.25, P = 0.96) did not differ significantly between the RRS and ORS groups.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence, robotic resection for rectal cancer provided equivalent pathological outcomes to ORS in terms of CRM positivity, number of harvested lymph nodes and complete TME rates and DRM.

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.

Laparoscopic Approach to Rectal Cancer-The New Standard?

Minimally invasive surgery has revolutionized the way surgeons perform colorectal surgery, and new technologies continually upend the way surgeons view and operate within the deep pelvis. Among other benefits, it is associated with decreased lengths of stay, wound and surgical site infections, pain scores, and has an overall lower complication rate vs. open surgery (1). Recently, however, the role of minimally invasive surgery has been called into question in the effective and safe treatment of rectal cancer. This manuscript will outline the history of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, examine evidence detailing its safety (compared with alternatives), and discuss important aspects of use, most notably the considerable learning curve required to achieve proficiency, the extent of its current use, and potential pitfalls. The current evidence suggests minimally invasive surgery is a very safe way to treat rectal cancer when performed by experienced and specialty trained surgeons.

Real-world impact of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a population-based analysis

Background

Randomized trials have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes and decreased morbidity in patients with rectal cancer who undergo laparoscopic surgery (lapsx) compared with open surgery (opensx). The objective of the present study was to compare short-term outcomes after lapsx and opensx in a real-world setting.

Methods

A national discharge abstract database was used to identify all patients who underwent rectal cancer resection in Canada (excluding Quebec) from April 2004 through March 2015. Short-term outcomes examined included same-admission mortality and length of stay (los).

Results

Of 28,455 patients, 82.4% underwent opensx, and 17.6%, lapsx. The use of lapsx increased to 34% in 2014 from 5.9% in 2004 (p < 0.0001). Same-admission mortality was lower among patients undergoing lapsx than among those undergoing opensx (1.08% and 1.95% respectively, p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, the odds of same-admission mortality with lapsx was 36% lower than that with opensx (odds ratio: 0.64; p = 0.003). Median los was shorter after lapsx than after opensx (5 days and 8 days respectively, p = 0.0001). The strong association of lapsx with shorter los was maintained on multivariable analysis controlling for patient, surgeon, and hospital factors.

Conclusions

For patients with rectal cancer, shorter los and decreased same-admission mortality are associated with the use of lapsx compared with opensx.

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.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus open surgery (OS) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to June 2017. Operation related index, postoperative complication, and long-term survival rate and disease-free survival rate were evaluated by meta-analytical techniques.

RESULT

Nine RCTs enrolling 4126 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Compared to OS, LS had similar positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and number of lymph nodes extracted (LNE) as well as long term 5 years survival rate and disease-free survival rate, but of which the risk tendency was higher in LS group. The short-term outcomes of major and total postoperative complication were lower in LS group.

CONCLUSIONS

LS for rectal cancer was as safe and effective as OS in terms of long-term outcomes, but with lower postoperative complication.

Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current state and future perspective

Interest in minimally invasive surgery has increased in recent decades. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) was introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. RALS has the potential to provide better clinical outcomes in rectal cancer surgery, allowing for precise dissection in the narrow pelvic space. In addition, RALS represents an important advancement in surgical education with respect to use of the dual-console robotic surgery system. Because the public health insurance systems in Japan have covered the cost of RALS for rectal cancer since April 2018, RALS has been attracting increasingly more attention. Although no overall robust evidence has yet shown that RALS is superior to laparoscopic or open surgery, the current evidence supports the notion that technically demanding subgroups (patients with obesity, male patients, and patients treated by extended procedures) may benefit from RALS. Technological innovation is a constantly evolving field. Several companies have been developing new robotic systems that incorporate new technology. This competition among companies in the development of such systems is anticipated to lead to further improvements in patient outcomes as well as drive down the cost of RALS, which is one main concern of this new technique.

Controversies in Surgical Oncology: Does the Minimally Invasive Approach for Rectal Cancer Provide Equivalent Oncologic Outcomes Compared with the Open Approach?

BACKGROUND

Compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer has been shown to improve short-term outcomes and yield equivalent long-term oncologic results. It remains to be seen if oncologic outcomes for the minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer are equivalent to traditional open rectal resection.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of Medline, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases. Relevant studies were selected using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five key questions comparing minimally invasive and open oncologic outcomes for rectal cancer were specifically analyzed. A meta-analysis was not done due to heterogeneity of studies.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria, including six randomized controlled trials. The laparoscopic approach to rectal resection was not more likely than the traditional open approach to have clear circumferential and distal margins, a complete total mesorectal excision grade, ≥ 12 lymph nodes in the resected specimen, reduced local recurrence rates, or reduced overall survival rates. Two randomized trials revealed that successful laparoscopic resection was not noninferior to open.

CONCLUSIONS

Caution should be exercised when choosing surgical options for rectal cancer. Results of randomized trials could not prove that short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were equivalent to those after open surgery even when performed by surgeons with laparoscopic expertise. However, reported long-term data have not shown a difference in outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery. Future advances in minimally invasive technology may improve oncologic margins but these will require careful study and scrutiny.

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for locally advanced low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (RALLD) have not been fully investigated. This study aimed to assess the oncological and long-term outcomes of RALLD for rectal cancer through comparison with those of open lateral lymph node dissection (OLLD) in a retrospective study.

METHODS

Between September 2002 and October 2014, the medical data of 426 patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for primary rectal cancer were collected. Of these, 115 patients were excluded after data collection (stage IV, n = 61; total pelvic exenteration, n = 31; multiple cancer, n = 20; conventional laparoscopic surgery, n = 3). Before matching, 311 patients with clinical stage II/III were analyzed. Using exact matching, patients were stratified into RALLD (n = 78) and OLLD (n = 78) groups. Pathological findings and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The pathological stage and number of harvested lymph nodes showed no significant differences between the groups. The rate of positive resection margin in the RALLD group tended to be lower compared with that of the OLLD group (p = 0.059). The median follow-up duration was 54.0 months in 156 patients. The 5-year overall survival rate was 95.4 and 87.8% in the RALLD and OLLD groups, respectively (p = 0.106). The 5-year relapse-free survival rate was 79.1 and 69.9% in the RALLD and OLLD groups, respectively (p = 0.157). The 5-year local relapse-free survival rate was 98.6 and 90.9% in the RALLD and OLLD groups, respectively (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

The short- and long-term outcomes indicated that RALLD may be a useful modality for locally advanced low rectal cancer.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision with the single-docking technique for patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The robotic system has advantages of high-definition three-dimensional vision and articular instruments with high dexterity, allowing more precise dissection in the deep and narrow pelvic cavity.

METHODS

We enrolled 95 patients with stage I-III rectal cancer (adenocarcinoma) who underwent totally robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) with single-docking technique at a single institution between September 2013 and December 2016.

RESULTS

Of the 95 patients, 48 (50.5%) and 30 (31.6%) patients had lower and middle rectal cancers, respectively. Of the 75 (78.9%) patients undergoing preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), 27 (28.4%) exhibited pathologic complete response (pCR). Only four (4.2%) patients underwent abdominoperineal resection and the sphincter preservation rate was 95.8%. R0 resection was performed in 92 (96.8%) patients. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) and distal resection margin (DRM) were positive in 2 (2.1%) and 1 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The anastomotic leakage rate was 5.4% (5/95 patients). The overall complication rate was 17.9% (17/95 patients); most of them were mild. No 30-day hospital mortality occurred, and no patients required conversion to open surgery. In 92 patients undergoing R0 resection, 2-year overall survival was 94% and 2-year disease-free survival was 83%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrated that totally robotic-assisted TME with the single-docking technique is safe and feasible for patients with rectal cancer, with or without preoperative CCRT. Moreover, favorable pCR rate, R0 resection rate, CRM, DRM, sphincter preservation rate, and short-term oncological outcomes can be achieved by combining this approach with appropriate preoperative CCRT.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs

PURPOSE

The costs involved in performing robotic surgery present a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. The aims of this study are to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer and to conduct a literature review of the cost analysis.

METHODS

This is an observational, comparative study whereby data were abstracted from a retrospective database of patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection from October 2010 to March 2017, at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. An independent company performed the financial analysis, and fixed costs were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 86 robotic and 112 laparoscopic rectal resections were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the laparoscopic approach (336 versus 283 min; p = 0.001). The main pre-operative data, overall morbidity, hospital stay and oncological outcomes were similar in both groups, except for the readmission rate (robotic: 5.8%, laparoscopic: 11.6%; p = 0.001). The mean operative costs were higher for robotic surgery (4285.16 versus 3506.11€; p = 0.04); however, the mean overall costs were similar (7279.31€ for robotic and 6879.8€ for the laparoscopic approach; p = 0.44). We found four studies reporting costs, three comparing robotic versus laparoscopy costs, with all of them reporting a higher overall cost for the robotic rectal resection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal resection has similar clinical outcomes to that of the conventional laparoscopic approach. Despite the higher operative costs of robotic rectal resection, overall mean costs were similar in our series.

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.

Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

Over the past few decades, robotic surgery has developed from a futuristic dream to a real, widely used technology. Today, robotic platforms are used for a range of procedures and have added a new facet to the development and implementation of minimally invasive surgeries. The potential advantages are enormous, but the current progress is impeded by high costs and limited technology. However, recent advances in haptic feedback systems and single-port surgical techniques demonstrate a clear role for robotics and are likely to improve surgical outcomes. Although robotic surgeries have become the gold standard for a number of procedures, the research in colorectal surgery is not definitive and more work needs to be done to prove its safety and efficacy to both surgeons and patients.

Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in colorectal surgery comparing with traditional laparoscopic surgery or open surgery

In order to compare the curative effect of the Da Vinci surgical system (DVSS) with laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery for colorectal resection, literature search was conducted in PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), and Cochrane library up to January 15, 2016. Odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were used as effect size for evaluation of different outcomes. In total, 10 studies consisting of 2767 patients were included for the meta-analysis. As a result, there were no significant differences between DVSS and LS/open surgery in the long-term oncologic outcomes ( p > 0.05). However, DVSS achieved a significantly lower length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss (EBL), but a longer operation time. Moreover, DVSS showed a significantly reduced conversion to open surgery than LS (OR = 0.19, 95% confidence interval: 0.08–0.48). Subgroup analysis indicated that DVSS had different results in rectal adenocarcinoma and colon cancer subgroups on outcomes of conversion to open surgery and operation time. DVSS is superior to LS/open surgery in length of hospital stay and EBL, but needs longer operation time. Long-term outcomes of DVSS are comparable with the other approaches. From long-term perspective, DVSS has an equivalent effect to the other two techniques.

Who may benefit from robotic gastrectomy?: A subgroup analysis of multicenter prospective comparative study data on robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy

AIMS

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer has been proven to be a feasible and safe minimally invasive procedure. However, our previous multicenter prospective study indicated that robotic gastrectomy is not superior to laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to identify which subgroups of patients would benefit from robotic gastrectomy rather than from conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter comparative study comparing laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy was previously conducted. We divided the patients into subgroups according to obesity, type of gastrectomy performed, and extent of lymph node dissection. Surgical outcomes were compared between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in each subgroup.

RESULTS

A total of 434 patients were enrolled into the robotic (n = 223) and laparoscopic (n = 211) surgery groups. According to obesity and gastrectomy type, there was no difference in the estimated blood loss (EBL), number of retrieved lymph nodes, complication rate, open conversion rate, and the length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. According to the extent of lymph node dissection, the robotic group showed a significantly lower EBL than did the laparoscopic group after D2 dissection (P = 0.021), while there was no difference in EBL in patients that did not undergo D2 dissection (P = 0.365).

CONCLUSION

Patients with gastric cancer undergoing D2 lymph node dissection can benefit from less blood loss when a robotic surgery system is used.

Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery

INTRO

Although the use of laparoscopy has significantly increased in colorectal procedures, robotic surgery may enable additional cases to be performed using a minimally invasive approach. We separately evaluated the value of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures compared to the open approach.

METHODS

Patients undergoing nonemergent colorectal operations from 2010 to 2013 with National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data were identified. Robotic and laparoscopic procedures were separately matched (1:1) to open cases. Outcomes included 30-day composite morbidity, length of stay, operative time, and inpatient costs. Frequently used intraoperative disposable items were categorized, and significant cost contributors were identified by surgical approach. Statistical differences were determined with Chi-square and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

Both laparoscopic (n = 67) and robotic (n = 45) approaches were associated with decreased composite morbidity compared to matched open cases (lap vs. open: 22.4% vs. 49.2%, P < .01; robotic vs. open: 6.7% vs. 33.3%, P < .01). Median length of stay was significantly shorter for both laparoscopic and robotic compared to open surgery (lap vs. open: 5 vs. 7 days, P < .01; robotic vs. open: 5 vs. 7 days, P < .01). Median hospital costs were similar between laparoscopic and open surgery ($13,319 vs. $14,039; P = .80) and robotic and open surgery ($13,778 vs. $13,629; P = .48).

CONCLUSION

These findings illustrate the value for both laparoscopic and robotic approaches to colorectal surgery compared to the open approach in terms of short-term outcomes and inpatient costs. Advanced intraoperative disposable items such as cutting staplers and energy devices are important targets for additional cost containment.

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −159.11 to −120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: −2.10, 95% CI: −3.47 to −0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: −0.97, 95% CI = −1.06 to −0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: −1.71.95% CI = −3.31 to −0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Recent randomized controlled data have shown possible limitations to laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer. The retrospective data, used as the basis for designing the trials, and which showed no problems with the technique, are discussed. The design of the randomized trials is discussed relative to the future meta-analysis of the recent data. The implications of the current findings on practice are discussed as surgeons try to adjust their practice to the new findings. The possible next steps for clinical and research innovations are put into perspective as new technology is considered to compensate for newly identified limitations in the laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer.

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: Laparoscopic vs robotic surgery

AIM: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.

METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014 (robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage I-III disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.

RESULTS: Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME (L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME (R-TME) (P < 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients (8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P < 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group (18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P < 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients (1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P < 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION: Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.

The circumferential resection margins status: A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer (RC) is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach, but robotic-assisted surgery may overcome some limitations of laparoscopy in RC treatment. We compared the rate of positive circumferential margins between robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision (TME) for RC in our institution.

METHODS

Mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma patients consecutively submitted to robotic surgery were compared to laparoscopic and open approach. From our prospective database, 59 patients underwent robotic-assisted rectal surgery from 2012 to 2015 (RTME group) were compared to our historical control group comprising 200 open TME (OTME group) and 41 laparoscopic TME (LTME group) approaches from July 2008 to February 2012. Primary endpoint was to compare the rate of involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) and the mean CRM between the three groups. Secondary endpoint was to compare the mean number of resected lymph nodes between the three groups.

RESULTS

CRM involvement was demonstrated in 20 patients (15.5%) in OTME, 4 (16%) in LTME and 9 (16.4%) in the RTME (p = 0.988). The mean CRM in OTME, LTME and RTME were respectively 0.6 cm (0-2.7), 0.7 cm (0-2.0) and 0.6 cm (0-2.0) (p = 0.960). Overall mean LN harvest was 14 (0-56); 16 (0-52) in OTME, 13 (1-56) in LTME and 10 (0-45) in RTME (p = 0.156).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that robotic TME has the same oncological short-term results when compared to the open and laparoscopic technique, and it could be safely offered for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer.

Robot-assisted surgery for the radical treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement: short- and mid-term surgical and functional outcomes

PURPOSE

Sexual and urinary dysfunctions are complications in radical treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) with colorectal involvement. The aim of this article is to report the preliminary results of our single-institution experience with robotic treatment of DIE, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative surgical outcomes and focusing on the impact of this surgical approach on autonomic functions such as urogenital preservation and sexual well-being.

METHODS

From January 2011 through December 2013, a case series of 10 patients underwent robotic radical treatment of DIE with colorectal resection using the da Vinci System. Surgical data were evaluated, together with perioperative urinary and sexual function as assessed by means of self-administered validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

None of the patients reported significant postoperative complications. Questionnaires concerning sexual well-being, urinary function, and impact of symptoms on quality of life demonstrated a slight worsening of all parameters 1 month after surgery, while data were comparable to the preoperative period 1 year after surgery. Dyspareunia was the only exception, as it was significantly improved 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery seems to be advantageous in highly complicated procedures where extensive dissection and proper anatomy re-establishment is required, as in DIE with colorectal involvement. Our preliminary results show that robot-assisted surgery could be associated with a low risk of complications and provide good preservation of urinary function and sexual well-being.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Update in 2015

During the last decade, robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly gained acceptance among colorectal surgeons worldwide, with well-established safety and feasibility. The lower conversion rate and better surgical specimen quality of robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery potentially improves survival. Earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision is another favorable outcome. Long-term survival data are sparse with no evidence that robotic surgery offers major benefits in oncological outcomes. Although initial reports are promising, more rigorous scientific evaluation in multicenter, randomized clinical trials should be performed to definitely determine the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery.

Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current status and perspectives

The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition three-dimensional vision, it translates the surgeon’s hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors’ centre.

The feasibility of laparoscopic extended pelvic surgery for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic extended pelvic surgery for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

METHODS

The data on 77 patients, who underwent extended pelvic surgery between February 2008 and June 2014, were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided, based on their treatment history, into an open surgery (OS) group (n = 41) and a laparoscopic surgery (LS) group (n = 36).

RESULTS

The operative time in the LS group was significantly longer than that in the OS group (766 vs. 561 min; p < 0.001). In contrast, the LS group was associated with a significantly lower volume of intraoperative blood loss (195 vs. 923 ml; p < 0.001), fluid balance (5.38 vs. 8.23 ml/kg/h; p < 0.001) and rate of complications (40.0 vs. 68.3 %; p = 0.035), and a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay. The postoperative levels of colloid osmotic pressure and albumin were significantly higher in the LS group.

CONCLUSION

The operative time of the LS group was longer than that of the OS group; however, the LS group experienced less blood loss and fewer complications. Moreover, LS was associated with a reduction in intraoperative infusions and a reduced fluid balance, which maintained homeostasis.

Current status of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A bird's eye view

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach and has been validated in randomized controlled trials to be oncologically safe with better perioperative outcomes than open surgery including shorter length of stay, earlier return of bowel function, better cosmesis, and less analgesic requirement. Laparoscopic surgery, however, has inherent limitations due to two-dimensional vision, restricted instrument motion and a very long learning curve. Robotic surgery with its superb three-dimensional magnified optics, stable retraction platform and 7 degrees of freedom of instrument movement offers significant benefits during Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) including ease of operation, markedly lower conversion rates and better quality of the specimen in addition to shorter (steeper) learning curves. This review summarizes the current evidence for the adoption of robotic TME for rectal cancer with supporting data from the literature and from the authors' own experience. All relevant articles from PubMed using the search terms listed below and published between 2000 and 2014 including randomized trials, meta-analyses, prospective studies, and retrospective reviews with substantial numbers were included.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Resection: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopy has been applied to colorectal resections for more than 2 decades. However, laparoscopic rectal resection is technically demanding, especially when performing a tumor-specific mesorectal excision in a difficult pelvis. Robotic surgery is uniquely designed to overcome most of these technical limitations. The aim of this study was to confirm the feasibility of robotic rectal cancer surgery in a large multicenter study.

METHODS

Retrospective data of 425 patients who underwent robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal lesions at seven institutions were collected. Outcome data were analyzed for the overall cohort and were stratified according to obese versus non-obese and low versus ultra-low resection patients.

RESULTS

Mean age was 60.9 years, and 57.9 % of patients were male. Overall, 51.3 % of patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy, while operative time was 240 min, mean blood loss 119 ml, and intraoperative complication rate 4.5 %. Mean number of lymph nodes was 17.4, with a positive circumferential margin rate of 0.9 %. Conversion rate to open was 5.9 %, anastomotic leak rate was 8.7 %, with a mean length of stay of 5.7 days. Operative times were significantly longer and re-admission rate higher for the obese population, with all other parameters comparable. Ultra-low resections also had longer operative times.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is safe and can be performed according to current oncologic principles. BMI seems to play a minor role in influencing outcomes. Thus, robotics might be an excellent treatment option for the challenging patient undergoing resection for rectal cancer.