Operative and oncological outcomes after robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To some extent, the robotic technique does offer certain benefits in rectal cancer surgery than laparoscopic one, while remains a topic of ongoing debate for rectal cancer patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT).

METHODS

Potential studies published until January 2024 were obtained from Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed. Dichotomous and continuous variables were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs, respectively. A random effects model was used if the I2 statistic >50%; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 1079 patients were analysed. The robotic-assisted group had an 0.4 cm shorter distance from the anal verge (95% CI: -0.680 to -0.114, P =0.006) and 1.94 times higher complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rate (OR=1.936, 95% CI: 1.061-3.532, P =0.031). However, the operation time in the robotic-assisted group was 54 min longer (95% CI: 20.489-87.037, P =0.002) than the laparoscopic group. In addition, the robotic-assisted group had a lower open conversion rate (OR=0.324, 95% CI: 0.129-0.816, P =0.017) and a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD=-1.127, 95% CI: -2.071 to -0.184, P =0.019).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery offered several advantages over laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer following NCRT in terms of resection of lower tumours with improved TME completeness, lower open conversion rate, and shorter hospital stay, despite the longer operative time.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability.

METHODS

An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.

Enhanced recovery and reduced conversion rates in robotic rectal cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal resection with conventional laparoscopic and open approaches, focusing on complication rates, conversion rates, length of hospital stay, and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center cohort study included 106 patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer (UICC stages I-III) who underwent rectal resection from January 2013 to December 2023. Patients were assigned to open surgery (n = 23), conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 55), or robotic-assisted surgery (n = 28).

RESULTS

Robotic surgery demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates compared to minimal-invasive surgeries (p = 0.047) and shorter hospital stays (11.5 ± 8 days) compared to open (17.91 ± 12 days) and laparoscopic (17.2 ± 14 days) surgeries (p = 0.001). The quality of the specimen was significantly better (Score 1) in robotic (85.71%) and open (89.09%) cases compared to laparoscopic approaches (47.83%) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was identified as a risk factor for worse specimen quality (p < 0.001). Older patients (> 63 years) had a higher risk for conversion in univariate analysis (p = 0.049). Morbidity was comparable between the groups (p = 0.131), and the anastomotic leakage rate did not differ significantly (laparoscopic: 18.18%, open: 13.04%, robotic: 17.86%). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed no significant differences in overall survival probabilities among the groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted rectal resection provides significant advantages in terms of lower conversion rates, better specimen quality, and shorter hospital stays while maintaining comparable complication rates and oncologic outcomes to conventional laparoscopic and open approaches. These findings support robotic surgery as a standard treatment option for rectal cancer.

Robotic assisted surgery reduces ergonomic risk during minimally invasive colorectal resection: the VOLCANO randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgery benefits patients but poor operating ergonomics causes musculoskeletal injuries in surgeons. This randomised controlled trial aims to assess whether robotic-assisted surgery with the open-console Versius® system can reduce surgeons' ergonomic risks during major colorectal resections.

METHODS

Prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05262296) in March 2022. Adult patients requiring a minimally invasive colorectal resection were potentially eligible. Photographs taken at 2-min intervals were analysed using the objective Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) posture analysis scale to calculate intraoperative surgeon ergonomic risk. Secondary outcomes included team communication (Oxford NOTECHS II), surgeon cognitive strain (modified NASA-TLX scale), and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio (40 robot, 20 laparoscopic). Mean age was 65yrs and 34 (57%) were male. Body Mass Index did not differ between the 2 groups (overall mean 29.0 ± 5) and there were equal proportions of left and right-colonic resections. REBA was significantly lower in the robotic arm (median robot REBA score 3 vs lap REBA 5 [p < 0.001]), equating to an injury risk category drop from "medium" to "low risk". There were no significant differences in team communication, operative duration, or patient outcomes. Surgeon cognitive strain was lower in robotic cases (mean robot 32.4 ± 10.3 vs lap 45.6 ± 14.3 [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrates that robotic surgery with an open-console system reduces ergonomic risk scores and cognitive strain during colorectal resections, with no apparent detriment to team communication. This may therefore be a safe & feasible solution to the increasing problem of work-related musculoskeletal injuries in surgeons.

Comparing robotic with laparoscopic beyond total mesorectal excision for advanced rectal cancer-a propensity-matched analysis

AIM

Robotic surgery is increasingly being used for rectal resection, with short-term benefits such as reduced hospital stay, faster bowel recovery and fewer complications. However, its utility for advanced rectal cancers requiring beyond total mesorectal excision has not been adequately evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic approaches for extended rectal resection, with postoperative and short-term oncological outcomes as endpoints.

METHOD

A retrospective, single-centre study of patients with advanced rectal cancer requiring extended rectal resection between January 2017 and December 2022 was carried out. Beyond total mesorectal excisions included pelvic exenteration, en bloc soft tissue or partial organ resection with the rectum, and lateral pelvic node dissection. Propensity score matching in a 4:1 ratio of laparoscopic to robotic was performed with age, sex, comorbidities, body mass index, organs involved, clinical T stage and colonoscopic obstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 425 beyond total mesorectal excisions were performed by minimally invasive approaches during the study period, and after propensity matching 228 laparoscopic operations were compared with 57 robotic resections. All baseline characteristics were balanced. No difference in blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, positive resection margin or nodal yield was found, but there was a somewhat longer operating duration in robotics. The 2-year disease-free and overall survival were also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in postoperative or short-term oncological outcomes were found between robotic and laparoscopic beyond total mesorectal excisions for advanced tumours when performed by teams experienced in both robotics and laparoscopy.

Elderly Rectal Cancer: An Updated Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Treatment of rectal cancer patients of advanced age should be modulated by life expectancy and tolerance. Due to the rapid advance of this field, we aim to conduct an updated review of this topic.

RECENT FINDINGS

The field of elderly rectal cancer has advanced a lot. This review covers all the treatment aspects of elderly rectal cancer, including the prognostic factor, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and palliative treatment. We also provide the future aspect of the management of elderly rectal cancer. The advancement of prognostic factor research, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and palliative treatment has made the care of elderly rectal cancer patients better. The future of these fields should focus on the definition of the elderly and the application of particle therapy.

Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis

Background

The effect of robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy is still controversial, and a comprehensive search and analysis of the current relevant evidence is necessary. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS).

Methods

Up to August 23, 2023, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) was used to calculate the effect sizes using RevMan 5.3.

Results

A total of 12 studies reporting on 11,686 participants were included. Compared with LS, RS increased the operative time (MD 35.16 min; 95% CI: 16.24, 54.07), but it did significantly reduce the risk of the conversion to open surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40, 0.53) and improved the TME incomplete rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93). Moreover, there were no difference in total postoperative complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84, 1.52), circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63, 1.27), distal margin positive (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29, 1.22), blood loss (MD -11.57 ml; 95% CI: -39.09, 15.94), length of hospital stay (MD -0.08 days; 95% CI: -1.26, 1.10), mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.21), lymph node harvested (MD 0.69.; 95% CI: -0.43, 1.82), and the time of first flatus (MD -0.47 days; 95% CI: -1.19, 0.25) between the two groups.

Conclusions

RS was associated with superiority over LS in reducing the risk of the conversion to open surgery and improving TME incomplete rate, which suggested that RS could be an effective method for treating rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=460084, PROSPERO (CRD42023460084).

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis from a bi-centric experience

The advantages of using the robotic platform may not be clearly evident in left colectomies, where the surgeon operates in an "open field" and does not routinely require intraoperative suturing. Current evidences are based on limited cohorts reporting conflicting outcomes regarding robotic left colectomies (RLC). The aim of this study is to report a bi-centric experience with robotic left colectomy in order to help in defining the role of the robotic approach for these procedures. This is a bi-centric propensity score matched study including patients who underwent RLC or laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) between January 1, 2012 and May 1, 2022. RLC patients were matched to LLC patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were conversion to open surgery and 30-day morbidity. In total, 300 patients were included. Of 143 (47.7%) RLC patients, 119 could be matched. After matching, conversion rate (4.2 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.265), 30-day morbidity (16.1 vs. 13.7%, p = 0.736), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (2.4 vs 3.2%, p = 0.572), transfusions (0.8 vs. 4.0%, p = 0.219), and 30-day mortality (0.8 vs 0.8%, p = 1.000) were comparable for RLC and LLC, respectively. Median operative time was longer for RLC (296 min 260-340 vs. 245, 195-296, p < 0.0001). Early oral feeding, time to first flatus, and hospital stay were similar between groups. RLC has safety parameters as well as conversion to open surgery comparable with standard laparoscopy. Operative time is longer with the robotic approach.