Oncologic and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic, Open, and Robotic Approaches for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Weighted Cohort Study

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.

Textbook outcome in low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: Post hoc analysis of the LASRE randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome has been incorporated into quality assessment measures in various oncological settings; however, it has not been applied to patients with low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). This study aimed to examine the prevalence and predictors of achieving a textbook outcome in patients undergoing surgical resection of low rectal cancer after nCRT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was a post hoc subgroup analysis of the prospective multicentric LASRE trial, which specifically enrolled patients with rectal cancer located within 5 cm from the dentate line at diagnosis, tumors with diameters less than 6 cm, and patients who underwent radical laparoscopic or open resection. A total of 597 patients who had clinically staged cT3-4aN0-2M0 tumors with diameters less than 6 cm and who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical resection were included.

RESULTS

Textbook outcome was achieved in 60.0 % of patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that body mass index >25 kg/m2 (OR = 0.594, P = 0.01), tumor distance from the anal verge >40 mm (OR = 5.518, P < 0.001), operative time >202 min (OR = 0.675, P = 0.04), and laparoscopic approach (OR = 1.497, P = 0.04) were independently predictive factors for the achievement of a textbook outcome in low rectal cancer patients undergoing nCRT and radical resection. A predictive nomogram for achieving a textbook outcome was constructed, yielding a C-index of 0.727.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection exhibited promising potential in improving the probability of achieving a textbook outcome.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal malignancy in obese patients: a propensity score-weighted cohort study

BACKGROUND

Insufficient evidence exists to ascertain the long-term prognosis in patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Employing an institutional database from 2009 to 2019, we assessed individuals with a BMI of greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 who underwent surgery for primary stage I-III colorectal adenocarcinoma. The authors used propensity score-weighted analysis to compare short-term and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgical approaches.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 473 patients (open vs. laparoscopic surgery: 220 vs. 253; median follow-up period, 60 months). The laparoscopy group showed a significantly longer operative time (252 vs. 212 min), a higher anastomotic-leakage rate (5.14% vs. 0.91%), and a greater proportion of Clavien-Dindo class greater than III complications (5.93% vs. 1.82%). The open group showed a higher wound infection rate (7.27% vs. 3.16%) and a higher readmission rate (6.36% vs. 2.37%). After propensity score weighting, laparoscopy was inferior to open surgery in terms of long-term overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.43), disease-free survival (1.39), and recurrence rate (21.1% vs. 14.5%). In the subgroup analysis, female patients, older individuals, stage III patients, patients with rectal cancer, and those who underwent surgery after 2014 showed inferior long-term outcomes after laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery for patients with obesity requires significant caution. Despite good short-term outcomes, this procedure is associated with hidden risks and poor long-term prognoses. In female patients, older individuals, stage III patients, patients with rectal cancer, and those treated in the late surgery era subgroups, caution is advised when performing laparoscopic surgery.

Outcome of Colorectal Robotic Surgery in Newly Established Robotic Surgery Center: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

The robotic platform compared to laparoscopy has proven to have similar postoperative outcomes, however its adoption in the Middle East has been slow and there is limited data regarding outcomes with its use in small newly established robotic colorectal programs. Our aim was to report our experience and outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare them to larger, more experienced centers.

METHODS

This is retrospective review of data collected between November 2021 and March 2023 from a tertiary health care referral center. The series included 51 patients who had elective or urgent robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who had emergency surgery were excluded. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and quality of oncological specimen.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity was 31.4% (n = 16 patients). Only 9.8% (n = 5) had serious morbidity of which three required interventions under general anesthesia. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR = 4), and there was no mortality. Of 17 rectal cancer resections, 88% had complete mesorectal excision, 15 of them were R0 resections, median lymph node harvested was 14 (IQR = 7) and two cases were converted to open. All the colon cancer resections had R0 resection, median lymph nodes harvested was 21 (IQR = 4) and none were converted to open.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery at a newly established center in a small country, when led by fellowship trained robotic colorectal surgeons, is safe and effective in terms of morbidity, mortality, conversion to open and specimen pathological quality.

Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study

The robotic platform matches or surpasses laparoscopic surgery in postoperative results. However, limited date and slow adoption are noticed in the middle east. We aimed to report outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare it to larger more experienced centers. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between 2021 and 2023 of 107 patients who had robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery was included in the study. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and the quality of oncological specimen. Of 107 patients, 57 were in the robotic and 50 were in the laparoscopic surgery groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in overall morbidity (46.8 vs. 53.2%, p = 0.9), serious morbidity (10.5 vs. 8%, p = 0.7), or mortality (0 vs. 4%, p = 0.2). Regarding oncological outcomes, there were no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of lymph node harvested (17.7 ± 6.9 vs 19.0 ± 9.7, p = 0.5), R0 resections (92.7 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.5), and the rate of complete mesorectal excision (92.7 vs. 71.4%, p = 0.19). The study found that the robotic group had an 86% reduction in conversion rate to open surgery compared to the laparoscopic group, despite including more obese and physically dependent patients (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.7, p = 0.01). Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective as laparoscopic surgery in smaller colorectal surgery programs led by fellowship-trained robotic surgeons, with outcomes comparable to those of larger programs.

Short-term outcomes of da Vinci SP versus Xi for colon cancer surgery: a propensity-score matching analysis of multicenter cohorts

Recent advancements in robotic systems have led to the introduction of the da Vinci SP system, which allows surgeons to perform colon cancer surgery through fewer ports. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of colon cancer surgeries conducted using the da Vinci SP and Xi systems. Patients who underwent robotic colon cancer surgeries between November 2020 and December 2022 at two tertiary referral centers were considered for inclusion. Following propensity-score matching, short-term outcomes between the two systems were retrospectively analyzed. Out of 189 patients included in the study, 106 from 53 propensity-score matched pairs were analyzed. Patients operated on with the SP system exhibited smaller incision lengths (5.0 cm vs. 9.4 cm, p < 0.001) experienced less pain at 8 h (3.0 vs. 3.5, p < 0.001) and at 24 h post-operation (2.9 vs. 3.3, p = 0.001) and had a shorter duration of hospital stay (5 days vs. 6 days, p = 0.002). The overall rate of postoperative complications was 10.4%, with no significant difference between the SP and Xi groups (7.5% vs. 13.2%). Robotic-assisted colon cancer surgery using the da Vinci SP system is feasible and demonstrates favorable short-term outcomes. Compared to the Xi system, the SP system offers advantages in terms of cosmesis, postoperative pain, and recovery duration for colon cancer patients.

Analysis of 10 years of open, laparoscopic, and robotic rectal surgeries in the community setting

Background

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the US. Many of these patients will require operations. Although there is significant data in the literature that supports minimally invasive colorectal operations in the academic setting, few studies have examined their performance in community hospitals.

Methods

Data was collected from a high-volume, university-affiliated, community center. Our Cancer Registry Database was queried to include any patients that had rectal surgery at our institution from 2010 to 2020. One hundred-twenty-two patients were identified and reviewed retrospectively. Main outcome measures include estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, time to first bowel movement, oncologic resection, length of stay (LOS), survival, and cost analysis.

Results

Both robotic and laparoscopic operations resulted in lower average EBL, less blood transfusions, and less time to first bowel movement (p = 0.003, 0.006, 0.003, respectively). There was no significant difference in ability to achieve R0 resection, adequate lymph node retrieval, and adequate total mesorectal excision (TME, p = 0.856, 0.489, 0.500, respectively). LOS was significantly shorter for minimally invasive operations, 4.35 vs 8.48 days, and average survival was longest for laparoscopic operations at 7.19 years as compared to 5.55 years for open operations (p < 0.001, 0.026, respectively). Cost was lowest for robotic operations (0.003).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive rectal operations, especially robotic, lead to better short- and long-term outcomes, equivalent oncologic resection, and are more cost-effective as compared to open operations even in the community setting, supporting continued performance and growth of robotic colorectal operations in the community setting.

Key message

Although there is significant data in the literature that supports minimally invasive colorectal operations in the academic setting, few studies have examined their performance in community hospitals as this study does. This study found that minimally invasive rectal operations, especially robotic, lead to better short- and long-term outcomes, equivalent oncologic resection, and are more cost-effective as compared to open operations even in the community setting, supporting continued performance and growth of robotic colorectal operations in the community setting.

Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and oncological results between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by multiple surgeon implementation: a propensity score-matched analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly common for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. However, the use and implementation of robotic surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery, focusing on pathological results and disease-free survival (DFS), in our cohort with initial robotic experience by multiple surgeon implementation. This retrospective study enrolled 571 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, who were treated with chemoradiotherapy and surgery between January 2015 and December 2021. Surgical outcomes after RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) were compared using a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. After matching, 200 patients (100 in each group) were included. The median operative time was significantly longer in the RAS group than in the LS group (p < 0.001). The conversion and morbidity rates were similar between the groups. A significantly higher rate of complete mesorectal excision (92% vs. 72%; p = 0.001) and number of lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.009) was observed in the RAS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.849 and p = 0.582, respectively). Two patients in the LS group developed local recurrence and 27 patients (15.4%) developed metastatic disease. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor stage III was the only factor associated with disease-free survival (HR, 9.34; (95% CI 1.13-77.1), p = 0.038). RAS and LS showed similar outcomes in terms of perioperative, anatomopathological, and disease-free survival, after multiple surgeon implementations.

Lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer with the only high-risk histology of submucosal invasion depth ≥ 1000 μm

PURPOSE

The number of patients undergoing additional surgery after endoscopic resection (ER) for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. Regarding high-risk histology of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T1 CRC, a submucosal invasion depth ≥ 1000 μm (T1b) alone may be related to a low incidence of LNM. This study was conducted to clarify the incidence of LNM and to identify factors associated with LNM in T1 CRC with high-risk histology characterized only by T1b.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated patients with pathological T1b CRC who underwent colorectal resection between 2010 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups with high-risk histology: those in whom the only high-risk feature was T1b (low-risk T1b group, n = 263), and those with T1b as well as lymphovascular invasion, tumor budding, or poorly differentiated or mucinous adenocarcinoma (high-risk T1b group, n = 289). The incidences of LNM and recurrence were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with LNM in the low-risk T1b group.

RESULTS

The incidences of LNM were 3.8% and 21.6% in the Low- and High-risk T1b groups, respectively (p < 0.01), while the 5-year recurrence rates in the two groups were 0.6% and 3.4%, respectively (p = 0.10). Multivariate analysis revealed that only a predominant histological type of moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma (p = 0.04) was independently associated with LNM in the low-risk T1b group.

CONCLUSION

When considering the omission of additional surgery after ER in cases of T1 CRC whose only high-risk histological feature is T1b, attention should be paid to the predominant histological type.

Comparison of Short-Term Results of Laparoscopic and Open Surgeries for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

Although laparoscopic colon cancer surgeries have increased in recent years, their oncological competence is questioned. In our study, we aimed to evaluate oncological competence by comparing laparoscopic and open surgery.

METHOD

The study was planned retrospectively. A total of 94 patients were included in the study, 42 of whom underwent laparoscopy, and 52 patients underwent open surgery. Both groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, staging, number of benign/malignant lymph nodes, histological findings, and complications.

RESULT

The final pathology report of all patients was adenocarcinoma. The median number of dissected lymph nodes was 20.9 in the open group (8-34) and 19.46 in the laparoscopy group (7-31) (p = 0.639). The median number of dissected malignant lymph nodes was 1 (0-13) in the open surgery group and 3.1 (0-8) in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.216). The laparoscopy group exhibited a longer operation time (281.2 ± 54.2 and 221.0 ± 51.5 min, respectively; p = 0.036) than the open surgery group, but a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, quicker initiation oral feeding, and shorter length of hospital stay (4.0 ± 0.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.0 days, respectively; p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Laparoscopic surgery elicits many benefits such as less wound infection, lower requirement for blood transfusion, shorter hospitalization, quicker initiation of oral feeding, and mobilization. Our study has shown that laparoscopic surgery provides quite adequate lymph node dissection when compared to oncological surgery, which is viewed with suspicion in the light of these benefits of laparoscopy.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Simple Summary

Surgery remains a mainstay of combined modality treatment at patients with rectal cancer; however, there is a growing interest in using laparoscopic techniques (LG); including robotic-assisted techniques (RG). Therefore, we have prepared a meta-analysis of the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. The results indicate a number of advantages of RG in terms of both safety and efficacy. Operative time in the RG group was shorter and associated with a statistically significantly lower conversion of the procedure to open surgery. RG technique provided a shorter duration of hospital stay and lowered urinary risk retention. No differences were found between these techniques regarding TNM stage; N stage or lymph nodes harvested. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% in RG vs. 98.8% for LG.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to 10 November 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was 2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD = −0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs. LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs. 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

A Diagnostic Nomogram for Predicting the Risk of Anastomotic Leakage in Elderly Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Single-center Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer has been gaining popularity over the past 2 decades. Whether elderly patients had more benefits from laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection (LAR) need further investigation when comparing with open anterior resection (OAR).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognosis of LAR in elderly patients (65 y and above) with rectal cancer and investigate the factors associated with the anastomotic leakage (AL). Besides, the study sought to create a nomogram for precise prediction of AL after anterior resection for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 343 rectal cancer patients over 65 years old who underwent LAR or OAR at a single center between January 2013 to January 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate analysis was conducted to explore potential risk factors for AL, and a nomogram for AL was created based on the multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 343 patients were included in this study, 271 patients in LAR group and 72 patients in OAR group. Most of the variables were comparable between the 2 groups. The mean operative time was longer in the LAR group than that in the OAR group (191.66±58.33 vs. 156.85±53.88 min, P<0.0001). The LAR group exhibited a significantly lower intraoperative blood loss than the OAR group (85.17±50.03 vs. 131.67±79.10 mL; P<0.0001). Moreover, laparoscopic surgery resulted in shorter postoperative hospital stay, lower rates of diverting stoma and receiving sphincter sparing surgery in comparison with open surgery. The overall rates of complications were 25.1% and 40.3% in the LAR and OAR groups (P=0.011), respectively. And the reoperation rates in the OAR group (0%) was lower than in the LAR group (1.5%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.300). Sex, location of tumor, diverting stoma and combined organ resection were identified as independent risk factors for AL based on multivariate analysis. Such factors were selected to develop a nomogram. After a median follow-up of 37.0 months, our study showed no significant difference in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups for treatment of rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that LAR is an alternative minimally invasive surgical procedure in patients above 65 years with better short-term outcomes and acceptable long-term outcomes compared with OAR. In addition, our nomogram has satisfactory accuracy and clinical utility may benefit for clinical decision-making.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robotic hepatectomy (RH) versus conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for malignancy using meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and the Cochrane Library databases up to September 2020 for studies, which limited to comparative articles of RH or LH for malignant tumors. Stata14.0 was performed in the meta-analysis. Six studies with a total of 1093 patients (345 RH and 748 LH) were eligible for inclusion. Operative time, tumor size, open procedure rate and the proportion of right hepatectomy were found to be significantly different between RH and LH in the pooled analysis (P < 0.05). Compared to LH, RH was associated with longer operative time, larger tumor size, lower open procedure rate and more common use for right hepatectomy. On the other hand, there was no difference in the operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rate, hospital stay, R0 resection rate, complications, resection margin, left lateral sectionectomy and left hepatectomy (P > 0.05). For malignant tumors that require hepatectomy, robotic approaches have demonstrated similar safety and feasibility to laparoscopy, with lower open procedure rate, were suitable for larger tumor size, and have a high right hepatectomy utilization rate. These results still need to be confirmed by multicenter, high-quality randomized controlled studies.

Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews

Regarding the surgical approaches for rectal cancer, many techniques have been reported in randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and reviews of comparisons between two techniques, e.g. open surgery vs laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery vs robotic surgery, or laparoscopic surgery vs transanal total mesorectal excision. Since robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision were developed after laparoscopic surgery had become an established minimally invasive technique, they have each been compared with laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, a review was performed to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision, and to perform such comparisons among ≥3 of the above mentioned approaches, in the expectation that this review will serve as a reference for aiding treatment selection in future. The results of the current review suggest that all of the examined procedures have advantages and disadvantages, but that there are no decisive factors that could be used to select one procedure over any other. At the present time it cannot be demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, transanal total mesorectal excision, or open surgery is superior to the other techniques, and it is important to select the best technique for each patient from among those that a surgeon can perform. It is also important to maintain a flexible attitude that allows new techniques to be adopted as needed in the future.

Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgical resection for rectal cancer usually requires a proctectomy with respective lymphadenectomy (total mesorectal excision). This has traditionally been performed transabdominally through an open incision. Over the last thirty years, minimally invasive surgery platforms have rapidly evolved with the goal to accomplish the same quality rectal resection through a less invasive approach. There are currently three resective modalities that complement the traditional open operation: (1) Laparoscopic surgery; (2) Robotic surgery; and (3) Transanal total mesorectal excision. In addition, there are several platforms to carry out transluminal local excisions (without lymphadenectomy). Evidence on the various modalities is of mixed to moderate quality. It is unreasonable to expect a randomized comparison of all options in a single trial. This review aims at reviewing in detail the various techniques in regard to intra-/perioperative benchmarks, recovery and complications, oncological and functional outcomes.

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Proctectomy Outcomes: An ACS-NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

The robotic platform is increasingly used in colorectal surgery. Recent upgrades in the robotic platform and introduction of proctectomy-specific reports from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) warrant updated evaluation of minimally invasive proctectomy outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy using ACS-NSQIP data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP data set was used to identify adult patients undergoing elective robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy in 2016 and 2017. Demographics, preoperative and intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Propensity-weighted analysis was used to estimate the effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 3845 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 2681 (70%) underwent a laparoscopic approach and 1164 (30%) underwent a robotic approach. Patients undergoing a robotic procedure were more likely to be older, have higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, low rectal tumors, and have undergone chemotherapy or radiation before surgery. After propensity adjustment, a robotic approach was associated with a decrease in conversion to open operation (estimated mean difference, -6.7%; P < 0.01), length of stay (-0.6 d; P = 0.01), occurrence of postoperative ileus (-3.7%; P = 0.01), and an increase in operative time (20.3 min; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Using data from a national cohort, we found that compared with laparoscopy, robotic proctectomy is associated with decreased conversion to open operation, longer operation time, decreased length of stay, and decreased postoperative ileus. Our study identified several advantages to a robotic approach; however, further work is needed to assess cost-effectiveness in conjunction with clinical outcomes.