What have we gained by performing robotic rectal resection? Evaluation of 64 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection for rectal adenocarcinoma. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23:316-319. [PMID: 23752000 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e31828e3697]

Comparison of Non-Oncological Postoperative Outcomes Following Robotic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection for Colorectal Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resection for colorectal malignancy. We performed a systematic review using a comprehensive search strategy on several electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline, and Google Scholar) in April 2022. Postoperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were compared using 12 end points. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and nonrandomized clinical trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer were included. The statistical analysis was performed using the risk ratio (RR) for categorical variables and the standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. Sixteen studies involving 2,318 patients were included. The difference in length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with robotic access (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = -0.19, -0.01, P = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Regarding intra-abdominal abscesses, the analysis showed an advantage in favor of the robotic group, but the result was not statically significant (RR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.28, 1.05, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). Mechanical obstruction was found to be higher in robotic group, favoring laparoscopic access, but was not significant (RR = 1.91, 95% CI = 0.95, 3.83, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in time to pass flatus and consume a soft diet. The rates of anastomotic leakage, ileus, wound infection, readmission, mortality, and incisional hernias were similar with both approaches. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a shorter hospital stay, with no differences in mortality and postoperative morbidity.

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

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.

Totally laparoscopic and totally robotic surgery in patients with left-sided colonic diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Introduction of the da Vinci Xi system has facilitated the use of robotics in colorectal surgery. Nevertheless, data on the outcomes of robotic surgery for the treatment of colonic diverticulitis have remained scarce.

METHODS

Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and perioperative outcomes of the patients undergoing totally robotic with the da Vinci Xi system or laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colonic diverticulitis (LCD) were compared.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic and robotic groups included 22 and 20 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of patient demographics, clinical characteristics, operative time, and postoperative complications. There were three conversions in the laparoscopy group and no conversion in the robotic group (P = 0.23). Conversion to open surgery was associated with postoperative morbidity (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is an applicable alternative for the treatment of LCD. Robotic approach may potentially lower the risk of operative morbidity by reducing the requirement of conversion.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision: A propensity case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) is expected to have advantages over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME). The aim is to compare the short-term outcomes between initial cases of L-TME and RTME.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among a total of 168 patients assigned to receive either R-TME (n = 84) or L-TME (n = 84), short term outcomes were compared between the groups by 1:1 propensity score matching of eight variables.

RESULTS

The inter-sphincteric resection rate (42.9% vs. 25%; P = 0.006) and operative time (372.4 ± 102.8 vs. 301 ± 53.6, P = 0.000) were significantly greater in R-TME. The conversion rate, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were similar. The anastomotic leak rate and major surgical complications rates were significantly higher in L-TME (9.5% vs. 1.2%; P = 0.016) and (13.1% vs. 4.8%; P = 0.034) respectively.

CONCLUSION

The oncologic quality and short-term outcomes in the two groups were comparable; however, anastomotic leak rates and major complications were significantly lower in R-TME. For experienced laparoscopic surgeons, robotic sphincter-saving TME is associated with lower morbidity when compared with laparoscopic approach.

Does Robot Overcome Obesity-related Limitations of Minimally Invasive Rectal Surgery for Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Adoption of laparoscopic surgery for cancers requiring partial or total proctectomy has been slow due to difficulty of achieving oncologically adequate resection. Obesity is a factor complicating use and outcomes of laparoscopic technique for rectal surgery. Impact of obesity on the outcomes of robotic rectal surgery for cancer is not well defined. This study is designed to assess whether if the robotic technique has potential to overcome the limitations of obesity and to improve outcomes of minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing robotic sphincter-saving radical resection with da Vinci Xi System between December 2014 and December 2016 were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups as obese and nonobese. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes and short-term results were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The study included 101 patients (30 were obese). Sex (female: 35 vs. 37%, P=0.89), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2 vs. 2, P=0.41), number of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (39% vs. 23%, P=0.12) and history of prior abdominal surgery (28% vs. 23%, P=0.62) were comparable between the groups. Operative time was longer in the obese group (311 vs. 332 min. P=0.01). Overall complication rates (27% vs. 23%, P=0.72), length of hospital stay (6 vs. 7, P=0.10) and pathologic outcomes were similar between the groups. Conversion to laparoscopy was not required in any operation. Two nonobese patients required conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal surgery for cancer in obese patients is equally safe and effective as in nonobese patients. The new robotic platform can facilitate to overcome obesity-related limitations of rectal surgery.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of elective rectal resection for rectal cancer in adults by robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Technological advantages of robotic surgery favor precise dissection in narrow spaces. However, the evidence base driving recommendations for the use of robotic surgery in rectal cancer primarily hinges on observational data.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (until August 2016) comparing robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Data on the following endpoints were evaluated: circumferential margin status, mesorectal grade, number of lymph nodes harvested, rate of conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, and operative time. Data were summarized as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods.

RESULTS

Five trials were eligible, including 334 robotic and 337 laparoscopic surgery cases. Meta-analysis showed that RS was associated with lower conversion rate (7.3%; 4 studies, 544 participants, RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.97, P = 0.04, I = 0%) and longer operating time (MD 38.43 minutes, 95% CI 31.84-45.01: P < 0.00001) compared with laparoscopic surgery. Perioperative mortality, rate of circumferential margin involvement (2 studies, 489 participants, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39-1.73), and lymph nodes collected (mean 17.4 Lymph Nodes; 5 trials, 674 patients, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.12) were similar. The quality of the evidence was moderate for most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of moderate quality supports that robotic surgery for rectal cancer produces similar perioperative outcomes of oncologic procedure adequacy to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery portraits lower rate of conversion to open surgery, while operating time is significantly longer than by laparoscopic approach.

Totally robotic complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer

Complexity and operative risks of complete mesocolic excision (CME) seem to be important drawbacks to generalize this procedure in the surgical treatment of right colon cancer. Robotic systems have been developed to improve quality and outcomes of minimal invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of robotic right-sided CME and present our initial experience. A retrospective review of 37 patients undergoing totally robotic right-sided CME between February 2015 and November 2017 was performed. All the operations were carried out using the key principles of both CME with intracorporeal anastomosis and no-touch technique. Data on perioperative clinical findings and short-term outcomes were analyzed. There were 20 men and 17 women with a mean age of 64.4 ± 13.5 years and a body mass index of 26.8 ± 5.7 kg/m². The mean operative time and estimated blood loss were 289.8 ± 85.3 min and 77.4 ± 70.5 ml, respectively. Conversion to laparoscopy occurred in one patient (2.7%). All the surgical margins were clear and the mesocolic plane surgery was achieved in 27 (72.9%) of the cases. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 41.8 ± 11.9 (median, 40; range 22-65). The mean length of hospital stay was 6.6 ± 3.7 days. The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were 5.4 and 21.6%, respectively. We believe that use of robot for right-sided CME is feasible and appears to provide remarkably a high number of harvested lymph nodes with good specimen quality.

Comparison of complication and conversion rates between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer: which patients and providers could benefit most from robotic-assisted surgery?

AIMS

To compare (1) complication and (2) conversion rates to open surgery (OS) from laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic-assisted surgery (RA) for rectal cancer patients who underwent rectal resection. (3) To identify patient, physician, and hospital predictors of conversion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A US-based database study was conducted utilizing the 2012-2014 Premier Healthcare Data, including rectal cancer patients ≥18 with rectal resection. ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedural codes were utilized to identify surgical approaches, conversions to OS, and surgical complications. Propensity score matching on patient, surgeon, and hospital level characteristics was used to create comparable groups of RA\LS patients (n = 533 per group). Predictors of conversion from LS and RA to OS were identified with stepwise logistic regression in the unmatched sample.

RESULTS

Post-match results suggested comparable perioperative complication rates (RA 29% vs LS 29%; p = .7784); whereas conversion rates to OS were 12% for RA vs 29% for LS (p < .0001). Colorectal surgeons (RA 9% vs LS 23%), general surgeons (RA 13% vs LS 35%), and smaller bed-size hospitals (RA 14% vs LS 33%) have reduced conversion rates for RA vs LS (p < .0001). Statistically significant predictors of conversion included LS, non-colorectal surgeon, and smaller bed-size hospitals.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective observational study limitations apply. Analysis of the hospital administrative database was subject to the data captured in the database and the accuracy of coding. Propensity score matching limitations apply. RA and LS groups were balanced with respect to measured patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to LS, RA offers a higher probability of completing a successful minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer patients undergoing rectal resection without exacerbating complications. Male, obese, or moderately-to-severely ill patients had higher conversion rates. While colorectal surgeons had lower conversion rates from RA than LS, the reduction was magnified for general surgeons and smaller bed-size hospitals.

Transanal Endoscopic and Transabdominal Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid-to-Low Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Short-term Postoperative and Oncologic Outcomes by Using a Case-Matched Analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to compare short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes of a transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) to those of a transabdominal robotic TME.

Methods

A total of 62 patients with rectal cancer underwent transanal (n = 26) or robotic (n = 36) TME between June 2013 and December 2014. After case-matching by tumor location and TNM stage, 45 patients were included for analysis. The median follow-up period was 21.3 months. Operative, histopathologic and postoperative outcomes and recurrences were analyzed.

Results

Patients younger than 60 years of age were more frequently observed in the robotic TME group (75.0% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.059), but tumor location, cT and cN category, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were not different between the 2 groups. Estimated blood loss was greater in the transanal group (283 mL vs. 155 mL, P = 0.061); however, the operation time and the rate of a diverting ileostomy and subsequent ileostomy repair were not different between the groups. The proximal resection margin was longer in the transanal TME group (20.8 cm ± 16.0 cm, P = 0.030), but the distal resection margins, involvements of the circumferential resection margin, TME quality, numbers of retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak and voiding difficulty, and recurrence rates for the 2 groups were not statistically different.

Conclusion

Transanal endoscopic and transabdominal robotic TME showed similar histopathologic and postoperative outcomes with the exception of the estimated blood loss and the proximal resection margin for a select group of patients.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery has gained acceptance as a less invasive approach in the treatment of colon cancer. However, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, particularly cancer of the lower rectum, is still challenging because of limited accessibility. Robotic surgery overcomes the limitations of laparoscopy associated with anatomy and offers certain advantages, including 3-D imaging, dexterity and ambidextrous capability, lack of tremors, motion scaling, and a short learning curve. Robotic rectal surgery has been reported to reduce conversion rates, particularly in low anterior resection, but it is associated with longer operative times than the conventional laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidities are similar between the robotic and conventional laparoscopic approaches, and oncological outcomes such as the quality of the mesorectum and the status of resection margins are also equivalent. The possible superiority of robotic surgery in terms of the preservation of autonomic function has yet to be established in research based on larger numbers of patients. Although robotic rectal surgery is safe, feasible, and appears to overcome some of the technical limitations associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the advantages provided by this technical innovation are currently limited. To justify its expensive cost, robotic surgery is more suitable for select patients, such as obese patients, men, those with cancer of the lower rectum, and those receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

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.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide recommendations for clinical practice and prevention of postoperative complications, such as circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, and compare the amount of intraoperative bleeding, safety, operative time, recovery, outcomes, and clinical significance of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures in anus-preserving rectal cancer.

Methods

A literature search (PubMed) was performed to identify biomedical research papers and abstracts of studies comparing robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures. We attempted to obtain the full-text link for papers published between 2000 and 2016, and hand-searched references for relevant literature. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Nine papers (949 patients) were eligible for inclusion; there were 473 patients (49.8%) in the robotic group and 476 patients (50.2%) in the laparoscopic group. According to the data provided in the literature, seven indicators were used to complete the evaluation. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that robot-assisted procedure was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] −41.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] −77.51, −4.79; P=0.03), lower open conversion rate (risk difference [RD] −0.05; 95% CI −0.09, −0.01; P=0.02), lower hospital stay (MD −1.07; 95% CI −1.80, −0.33; P=0.005), lower overall complication rate (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.41, 0.83; P=0.003), and longer operative time (MD 33.73; 95% CI 8.48, 58.99; P=0.009) compared with conventional laparoscopy. There were no differences in the rate of CRM involvement (RD −0.02; 95% CI −0.05, 0.01; P=0.23) and days to return of bowel function (MD −0.03; 95% CI −0.40, 0.34; P=0.89).

Conclusion

The Da Vinci robot was superior to laparoscopy with respect to blood loss, open conversion, hospital stay, and postoperative complications during anus-preserving rectal cancer procedures; however, conventional laparoscopy had an advantage regarding operative time. The remaining indicators (CRMs and recovery from intestinal peristalsis) did not differ.

Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery

AIM

To analyses the current literature regarding the urogenital functional outcomes of patients receiving robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of electronic databases was performed in October 2015. The following search terms were applied: “rectal cancer” or “colorectal cancer” and robot* or “da Vinci” and sexual or urolog* or urinary or erect* or ejaculat* or impot* or incontinence. All original studies examining the urological and/or sexual outcomes of male and/or female patients receiving robotic rectal cancer surgery were included. Reference lists of all retrieved articles were manually searched for further relevant articles. Abstracts were independently searched by two authors.

RESULTS

Fifteen original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 1338 patients were included; 818 received robotic, 498 laparoscopic and 22 open rectal cancer surgery. Only 726 (54%) patients had their urogenital function assessed via means of validated functional questionnaires. From the included studies, three found that robotic rectal cancer surgery leads to quicker recovery of male urological function and five of male sexual function as compared to laparoscopic surgery. It is unclear whether robotic surgery offers favourable urogenital outcomes in the long run for males. In female patients only two studies assessed urological and three sexual function independently to that of males. In these studies there was no difference identified between patients receiving robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, in females the presented evidence was very limited making it impossible to draw any substantial conclusions.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be a trend towards earlier recovery of male urogenital function following robotic surgery. To evaluate this further, larger well designed studies are required.

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.

Case-matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: Initial Institutional Experience

Robotic colorectal surgery is an emerging technique. In this study, we aimed to compare outcomes of robotic colorectal operations to laparoscopy. Patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery between November 2010 and July 2013 were case matched to laparoscopic counterparts based on diagnosis and operation type. Perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared. There were 57 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery. American Society of Anaesthesiologists score was higher in patients who underwent robotic surgery (2 vs. 3, P=0.01). Blood loss (200 vs. 300 mL, P=0.27) and conversion rate to open surgery (6 vs. 5, P=0.75) were similar between the groups. Operating time was longer in robotic surgery (172 vs. 267 min, P<0.0001). Time to first bowel movement (3 vs. 3 d, P=0.38), hospital stay (5 vs. 6 d, P=0.22), and postoperative complications were comparable between the groups. In the early learning curve period, robotic colorectal surgery shows similar short-term outcomes with longer operating time compared with conventional laparoscopy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (R-LAR) with conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (L-LAR).

METHODS

A search in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Ovid databases was performed for studies published before July 2014 that compared the clinical and oncologic outcomes of R-LAR and L-LAR. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed. Depending on statistical heterogeneity, a fixed or random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The clinical and oncologic outcomes evaluated included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, rate of conversion to open surgery, post-operative complications, circumferential margin status, and number of lymph nodes collected.

RESULTS

Eight studies, including 324 R-LAR cases and 268 conventional L-LAR cases, were analyzed. The meta-analysis showed that R-LAR was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean difference (MD) = -1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.78, -0.28; P = 0.007), lower conversion rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.08; 95% CI = 0.02, 0.31; P = 0.0002), lower rate of circumferential margin involvement (OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.25, 1.01; P = 0.05), and lower overall complication rate (MD = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.43, 0.99; P = 0.04) compared with L-LAR. There was no difference in operative time (MD = 28.4; 95% CI = -3.48, 60.27; P = 0.08), the number of lymph nodes removed (MD = -0.63; 95% CI = -0.78, 2.05; P = 0.38), and days to return of bowel function (MD = -0.15; 95% CI = -0.37, 0.06; P = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

R-LAR was shown to be associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower conversion rate, lower rate of circumferential margin involvement, and lower overall complication rate compared with L-LAR. There were no differences in operative time, the number of lymph nodes removed, and days to return of bowel function.

Overview of robotic colorectal surgery: Current and future practical developments

Minimal access surgery has revolutionised colorectal surgery by offering reduced morbidity and mortality over open surgery, while maintaining oncological and functional outcomes with the disadvantage of additional practical challenges. Robotic surgery aids the surgeon in overcoming these challenges. Uptake of robotic assistance has been relatively slow, mainly because of the high initial and ongoing costs of equipment but also because of limited evidence of improved patient outcomes. Advances in robotic colorectal surgery will aim to widen the scope of minimal access surgery to allow larger and more complex surgery through smaller access and natural orifices and also to make the technology more economical, allowing wider dispersal and uptake of robotic technology. Advances in robotic endoscopy will yield self-advancing endoscopes and a widening role for capsule endoscopy including the development of motile and steerable capsules able to deliver localised drug therapy and insufflation as well as being recharged from an extracorporeal power source to allow great longevity. Ultimately robotic technology may advance to the point where many conventional surgical interventions are no longer required. With respect to nanotechnology, surgery may eventually become obsolete.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Lately, the main technical innovations in the field of colorectal surgery have been the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques; the aim of this study is to investigate the results and the advantages of these two surgical approaches.

METHODS

Twenty-two studies including 1652 laparoscopic and 1120 robotic-assisted resections were analyzed and categorized into right, left, and pelvic resections of the middle/low rectum, aiming to the following outcomes: operating time, blood loss, bowel function recovery, return to oral intake, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.

RESULTS

The vast majority of the studies were non-randomized investigations (19/22 studies) enrolling small cohorts of patients (median 55.0 laparoscopic and 34.5 robotic-assisted group) with a mean age of 62.2-61.0 years. Funnel plot analysis documented heterogeneity in studies which combined cancers and benign diseases. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favor of laparoscopic procedures regarding costs and operating time (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.686 and 0.493) and in favor of robotic surgery concerning morbidity rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.763), although no benefits were documented when analyzing exclusively randomized trials. When we differentiated approaches by side of resections, a significant difference was found in favor of the laparoscopic group when analyzing operating time in left-sided and pelvic procedures (SMD 0.609 and 0.529) and blood loss in pelvic resections (SMD 0.339).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic techniques were documented as the shorter procedures, which provided lower blood loss in pelvic resections, while morbidity rate was more favorable in robotic surgery. However, these results could not be confirmed when we focused the analysis on randomized trials only.

The functional results of radical rectal cancer surgery: review of the literature

Introduction For more than the last 20 years, low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) is a gold standard for rectal cancer treatment. Oncological outcomes have improved significantly and now more and more reports of functional outcomes appear. Due to the close relationship between the rectum and pelvic nerves, bowel, bladder, and sexual function are frequently affected during TME. Methods A search for published data was performed using the MEDLINE database (from 1 January 2005 to 31 January 2015) to perform a systematic review of the studies that described anorectal, bladder, and sexual dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the MINORS criteria. Results Eighty-nine studies were eligible for analysis. Up to 76% of patients undergoing sphincter preserving surgery will have changes in bowel habits, the so-called "low anterior resection syndrome" (LARS). The duration of LARS varies between a few months and several years. Pre-operative radiotherapy, damage of anal sphincter and pelvic nerves, and height of the anastomosis are the risk factors for LARS. There is no evidence-based treatment available for LARS. Sexual function is more commonly affected after rectal surgery than after urinary function. The main cause of dysfunction is damage to pelvic nerves. Sexual and bladder functional outcomes in females are less well reported. Laparoscopic and robotic surgery allows better visualization of autonomic nerves and, therefore, more precise dissection and preservation. Conclusions It is important that rectal resection is standardized as much as possible, and that new functional outcome research use the same validated outcome questionnaires. This would allow for a high-quality meta-analysis.

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

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery (RS) overcomes the limitations of previous conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Although meta-analyses have been published recently, our study evaluated the latest comparative surgical, urologic, and sexual results for rectal cancer and compares RS with CLS in patients with rectal cancer only.

METHODS

We searched three foreign databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Cochrane Library) and five Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi) during July 2013. The Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized were utilized to evaluate quality of study. Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio (RR), and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD). All meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager, V. 5.3.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies involving 2,224 patients were included. RS was associated with a lower rate of intraoperative conversion than that of CLS (RR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.54). Time to first flatus was short (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01). Operating time was longer for RS than that for CLS (MD, 49.97; 95% CI, 20.43-79.52, I(2) = 97%). International Prostate Symptom Score scores at 3 months better RS than CLS (MD, -2.90; 95% CI, -5.31 to -0.48, I(2) = 0%). International Index of Erectile Function scores showed better improvement at 3 months (MD, -2.82; 95% CI, -4.78 to -0.87, I(2) = 37%) and 6 months (MD, -2.15; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.22, I(2) = 0%).

CONCLUSION

RS appears to be an effective alternative to CLS with a lower conversion rate to open surgery, a shorter time to first flatus and better recovery in voiding and sexual function. RS could enhance postoperative recovery in patients with rectal cancer.

Possible benefits of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery regarding urological and sexual dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer may result in lower rates of urogenital dysfunction compared with laparoscopic surgery. A systematic review was conducted of studies reporting urogenital dysfunction after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched in February 2014. All studies investigating urogenital function after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery were identified. The inclusion criteria for meta-analysis studies required comparison of robot-assisted with laparoscopic surgery and the evaluation of urological and sexual function by validated questionnaire. The outcome was evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and the Female Sexual Function Index.

RESULTS

Ten studies including 689 patients were included. For the meta-analysis this fell to four including 152 patients in the robotic group and 161 in the laparoscopic group, without heterogeneity. The IPSS score at 3 and 12 months favoured robot-assisted surgery [mean difference (MD) -1.58; 95% CI (-3.1, -0.0), [P = 0.04; and MD -0.90 (-1.81, -0.02), P = 0.05]. IIEF scores at 3 months' follow-up [MD -2.59 (-4.25, -0.94),] P = 0.002] and 6 months' follow-up [MD -3.06 (-4.53, -1.59), P = 0.0001] were better after robot-assisted than laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSION

Although there were few data and no randomized controlled trials the results of the review suggested that robot-assisted surgery resulted in improved urogenital function than after laparoscopy.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review of current practice

AIM: To give a comprehensive review of current literature on robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS: A systematic review of current literature via PubMed and Embase search engines was performed to identify relevant articles from january 2007 to november 2013. The keywords used were: “robotic surgery”, “surgical robotics”, “laparoscopic computer-assisted surgery”, “colectomy” and “rectal resection”.

RESULTS: After the initial screen of 380 articles, 20 papers were selected for review. A total of 1062 patients (male 64.0%) with a mean age of 61.1 years and body mass index of 24.9 kg/m² were included in the review. Out of 1062 robotic-assisted operations, 831 (78.2%) anterior and low anterior resections, 132 (12.4%) intersphincteric resection with coloanal anastomosis, 98 (9.3%) abdominoperineal resections and 1 (0.1%) Hartmann’s operation were included in the review. Robotic rectal surgery was associated with longer operative time but with comparable oncological results and anastomotic leak rate when compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery.

CONCLUSION: Robotic colorectal surgery has continued to evolve to its current state with promising results; feasible surgical option with low conversion rate and comparable short-term oncological results. The challenges faced with robotic surgery are for more high quality studies to justify its cost.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: what is the evidence?

Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer is a well-established procedure supported by several well-conducted large-scale randomised controlled trials. Patients could now be conferred the benefits of the minimally invasive approach while retaining comparable oncologic outcomes to the open approach. However, the benefits of laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer remained controversial. While the laparoscopic approach is more technically demanding, results from randomised controlled trials regarding long term oncologic outcomes are only beginning to be reported. The impacts of bladder and sexual functions following proctectomy are considerable and are important contributing factors to the patients' quality of life in the long-term. These issues present a delicate dilemma to the surgeon in his choice of operative approach in tackling rectal cancer. This is compounded further by the rapid proliferation of various laparoscopic techniques including the hand assisted, robotic assisted, and single port laparoscopy. This review article aims to draw on the significant studies which have been conducted to highlight the short- and long-term outcomes and evidence for laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection: is there any real difference? A comparative single center study

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has gained worldwide acceptance in the past decade, and several studies have shown that this technique is safe and feasible. The aim of this study is to compare main outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection.

METHODS

In total, 143 consecutive patients treated for rectal cancer in our department with laparoscopic or robotic-assisted surgery from October 2010 to July 2013 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal resection, and 56 patients were treated using a robotic approach. The conversion rate was 11.5% in the laparoscopic group and 3.5% in the robotics group (P =  0.09). The low rectal cancer conversion rate was significantly lower in the robotic group (1.8%) than in the laparoscopy group (9.2%) (P = 0.04). Mean operation time was 252 min in the laparoscopic group and 309 min in the robotic group (P =  0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach shows a lower conversion rate in low rectal cancer but with a longer operative time compared with the laparoscopic technique.