Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact of robotic total mesorectal excision upon pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 836 cases

The aim of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the impact of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) on pathology metrics in Male Overweight patients with Low rectal cancer (MOL). This was a multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of data. Two groups were defined: MOL (Male, Overweight, Low rectal cancer) and non-MOL. Overweight was defined as BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. Low rectal cancer was defined as cancer within 6 cm from the anal verge. The primary endpoints of this study were histopathological metrics, namely circumferential resection margin (CRM) (mm), CRM involvement rate (%), and the quality of TME. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved if < 1 mm. 836 (106 MOL and 730 non-MOL) patients that underwent robotic TME by six surgeons over 3 years were compared. No significant differences in demographics and perioperative variables were found, except for operating time, distal margin, and number of lymph nodes harvested. CRM involvement rate did not significantly differ (7.5% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.395). Mean CRM was statistically significantly narrower in MOL patients (6.6 vs. 7.7 mm, p = 0.04). Quality of TME did not differ. Distance of tumor from the anal verge was the only independent predictor of CRM involvement. Robotic TME may provide optimal pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer. Although CRM was a few millimeters narrower in MOL, the values were within the range of uninvolved margins making the difference statistically significant, but not clinically. Being MOL was not a risk factor for involvement of circumferential resection margin.

Lower need for allogeneic blood transfusion after robotic low anterior resection compared with open low anterior resection: a propensity score-matched analysis

Robotic low anterior resection (R-LAR) for rectal cancer may decrease estimated blood loss compared with open low anterior resection (O-LAR). The aim of this study was to compare estimated blood loss and blood transfusion within 30 days after O-LAR and R-LAR. This was a retrospective matched cohort study based on prospectively registered data from Västmanland Hospital, Sweden. The first 52 patients operated on using R-LAR for rectal cancer at Västmanland Hospital were propensity score-matched 1:2 with patients who underwent O-LAR for age, sex, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology physical classification system), and tumor distance from the anal verge. In total, 52 patients in the R-LAR group and 104 patients in the O-LAR group were included. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the O-LAR group compared with R-LAR: 582.7 ml (SD ± 489.2) vs. 86.1 ml (SD ± 67.7); p < 0.001. Within 30 days after surgery, 43.3% of patients who received O-LAR and 11.5% who received R-LAR were treated with blood transfusion (p < 0.001). As a secondary post hoc finding, multivariable analysis identified O-LAR and lower pre-operative hemoglobin level as risk factors for the need of blood transfusion within 30 days after surgery. Patients who underwent R-LAR had significantly lower estimated blood loss and a need for peri- and post-operative blood transfusion compared with O-LAR. Open surgery was shown to be associated with an increased need for blood transfusion within 30 days after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

[Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results]

BACKGROUND

The number of oncological robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections is rapidly increasing in Germany and worldwide; however, the indications, technique and potential limitations of this surgical technique are still discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The standardized modular surgical technique, the results in our clinic and the currently published evidence are presented.

RESULTS

The procedure should be divided into seven modules in terms of standardization and teaching. After the learning curve there are principally no limitations or contraindications. The robotic-assisted approach is superior to open surgery in the following points: blood loss, lymph node harvest, negative circumferential resection margin (CRM), complication rate and length of hospital stay. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy the conversion rate and postoperative sexual and bladder function disorders are decreased. The operating time is longer.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer resection is firmly established and standardized. The technique is superior to open surgery and conventional laparoscopy in some important aspects and is developing into the standard for this disease.

A comparison of robotic-assisted splenectomy and laparoscopic splenectomy for children with hematologic disorders

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is the standard of care for hematologic disorders requiring splenectomy. Less is known about the outcomes following robotic-assisted splenectomy (RS) for this indication. Our aim was to describe outcomes of RS to LS in pediatric patients with hematologic disorders in our institution.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective review was performed of pediatric patients undergoing LS vs. RS from 2014 to 2019. Patient demographics, diagnosis, spleen size, hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, post-operative opioid use, and hospital charges were evaluated. Standard univariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included in the study (14 LS, 10 RS). The mean spleen size at the time of surgery was larger in the RS group compared to LS (14.5 cm vs. 12.2 cm, p = 0.03). Operative time between the two cohorts was comparable (RS 140.5 vs LS 154.9 min). Median LOS for RS was shorter than LS (2.1 vs. 3.2 days, p = 0.02). Cumulative postoperative opioid analgesic requirements were not significantly different between the groups (17.4 mg vs. 30.5 mg). The median hospital charges, including the surgical procedure and hospital stay were higher in the RS group ($44,724 RS vs $30,255 LS, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Robotic splenectomy is a safe and feasible option for pediatric patients with hematologic disorders, and was associated with decreased LOS but higher charges compared to laparoscopic splenectomy. Further studies are required to delineate the optimal use and potential benefits of robot-assisted surgical techniques in children.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

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.

The impact of robotic total mesorectal excision on survival of patients with rectal cancer-a propensity matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), improving the quality of the surgery. We aim to compare the medium-term oncological outcomes of L-TME vs. robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who underwent L-TME or R-TME between 2011 and 2017. Patients presenting with metastatic disease or R1 resection were excluded. From a total of 680 patients, 136 cases of R-TME were matched based on age, gender, stage and time of follow-up with an equal number of patients who underwent L-TME. We compared 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Major complications were lower in the robotic group (13.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.04), highlighting the anastomotic leakage rate (7.4% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.01). The 3-year DFS rate for all stages was 69% for L-TME and 84% for R-TME (p = 0.02). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS was significantly higher in the R-TME group. OS was also significantly superior in the robotic group for every stage, reaching 86% in stage III. In the multivariate analysis, R-TME was a significant positive prognostic factor for distant metastasis (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.1, 0.6, p = 0.001) and OS (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.07, 0.4, p = 0.000). Moreover, major complications were also found to have a negative impact on OS (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.2, 21.6, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

R-TME for rectal cancer can achieve better oncological outcomes compared with L-TME, especially in stage III rectal cancers. However, a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm these findings.