A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery

High prevalence of erectile dysfunction within the first year after surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the prevalence of erectile dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery within the first year.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Erectile dysfunction is a late complication of surgery for rectal cancer. Intraoperative mechanical nerve damage is a probable cause, but it can also be attributed to radio- and chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review per our protocol (CRD42023472998), searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL in August 2023. We included studies reporting on men having surgery for rectal cancer and providing a prevalence of erectile dysfunction based on validated questionnaires published after 1997. The prevalence was estimated through forest plots. Bias was evaluated according to a checklist from the Joanna Briggs Institute.

RESULTS

Of the 4105 records identified in the search, we included 74 studies reporting on 9006 patients operated for rectal cancer. The studies evaluated erectile dysfunction through six validated questionnaires, especially the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) version 5 or 15 (84 %). The meta-analysis on 22 studies using IIEF showed that the prevalence of moderate to severe erectile dysfunction was 35 % (95 % CI 24-47 %) within the first year after surgery with very low certainty of evidence. Meta-regression on the prevalence of moderate to severe erectile dysfunction did not show a decrease in erectile dysfunction within the first year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Around every third patient experienced moderate to severe erectile dysfunction within the first year after surgery for rectum cancer, and the prevalence of erectile dysfunction did not improve within the first year after surgery.

MINI-ABSTRACT

This is a meta-analysis investigating the prevalence of erectile dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery within the first year. Erectile dysfunction was determined on the base of validated self-administered questionnaires. Moderate to severe erectile dysfunction was seen in one-third of patients within the first year after surgery for rectal cancer.

Unleashing the potential: transarterial chemoembolization combined with intra-arterial infusion of bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) alone with transarterial chemoembolization combined with the arterial infusion of bevacizumab (TACE + Bev) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 446 uHCC patients treated with TACE or TACE + Bev between January 2021 and March 2023. The study evaluated objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events in both treatment groups.

RESULTS

Finally, the TACE group comprised 295 patients, and the TACE + Bev group comprised 151 patients. Patients in the TACE + Bev group exhibited significantly prolonged median PFS (7.9 months vs. 10.3 months, P = 0.013) and median OS (16.1 months vs. 21.4 months, P = 0.041), improved ORR (26.8% vs. 37.7%, P = 0.017) and DCR (71.5% vs. 80.8%, P = 0.033) compared to the TACE group. Multifactorial Cox analysis identified alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) > 400 ng/ml as an independent prognostic factor for PFS and OS. Meanwhile, portal vein cancer thrombosis and distant metastasis are poor prognostic factors for OS. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with the TACE group, the TACE + Bev group demonstrated efficacy in improving outcomes for patients with uHCC with a manageable safety profile.

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.

Analysis of the impact on sexual function in early-onset overweight male patients with rectal cancer following robotic surgery

The effect of radical resection of male rectal cancer on sexual function has been the focus of attention. Despite this, there remains a dearth of robust evidence regarding the influence of robotic radical resection of rectal cancer on postoperative sexual function, particularly in men diagnosed at an early age. This study aims to explore the implications of robotic radical resection of rectal cancer on sexual function in early-onset overweight male patients diagnosed with this disease. A retrospective analysis was performed on male patients under 50 years old and over 20 years old who were diagnosed with rectal cancer (cT1-3N0M0) and underwent surgical treatment in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from May 2015 to August 2020. Sexual function was evaluated by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) test and scored at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The sexual function of traditional laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer (L-RE) and robotic radical resection of rectal cancer (R-RE) were compared. According to body mass index, L-RE and R-RE groups were further divided into normal body weight groups (LN-RE and RN-RE) and overweight groups (LO-RE and RO-RE), and the sexual function of each group was compared successively. Neither L-RE nor R-RE patients had significant differences in number of lymph nodes removed, tumour size, pathological TNM stage, or first exhaust time or time to eat liquids. The OS and DFS of the L-RE and R-RE groups, as well as the LO-RE and RO-RE groups, did not differ statistically after the logarithmic rank test (P > 0.05). IIEF scores in both the L-RE and R-RE groups declined sharply 1 month after surgery and then steadily increased. The R-RE group's IIEF scores significantly recovered in 6 months, compared to 12 months in the L-RE group. In comparison of subgroups, the results of sexual function in the LN-RE and RN-RE groups were similar to those in the L-RE and R-RE groups. Conversely, the RO-RE group showed slightly improved sexual function recovery than the LO-RE group 3 and 6 months post-surgery. 12 months after surgery, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. With similar long-term oncology outcomes, the robot-assisted surgical approach provided better protection of sexual function for men with early-onset rectal cancer, especially for those with a higher body mass index (BMI).

Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients' functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients' functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] -0 .15 [- 0.24 to - 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study on surgical outcomes and long-term survival

Although the safety and short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer patients are well-documented, there is limited research on the long-term survival outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery. This is a retrospective study that includes 502 patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal or sigmoid colon cancer between August 2016 and September 2021. All patients were diagnosed with rectal or sigmoid colon adenocarcinoma. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to minimize selection bias. Perioperative outcomes, complication rates, and pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 5-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were calculated and compared. Before matching, patients in the robotic group had earlier pathological T and N stages and were more likely to have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to the laparoscopic group. After matching, most clinicopathological outcomes were similar between the two groups, but the robotic group had longer operative times and a lower conversion rate to open surgery compared with laparoscopic group. After matching for clinical factors, the 5-year DFS rates were 88.19% for the robotic group and 82.46% for the laparoscopic group (P = 0.122), and the OS rates were 90.5% and 79.5% (P = 0.342), showing no significant differences. In the stratified analysis, patients in the robotic surgery group had significantly higher 5-year DFS rates in the following subgroups: age < 65 years, TNM stage I-II, received neoadjuvant therapy, and primary tumor located in the rectum. The safety and efficacy of robotic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer were validated compared to laparoscopic surgery, with both groups of patients exhibiting comparable long-term prognoses.

Comparison of a robotic surgery program for rectal cancer: short- and long-term results from a comparative, retrospective study between two laparoscopic and robotic reference centers

BACKGROUND

It is assumed that robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) may facilitate complex pelvic dissection for rectal cancer compared to the laparoscopic-assisted resection (LAR). The aim of this study was to compare perioperative morbidity, short- and long-term oncologic, and functional outcomes between the RAS and LAR approaches.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2021, all rectal cancers operated on by (LAR) or (RAS) were retrospectively reviewed in two colorectal surgery centers.

RESULTS

A total of 197 patients were included in the study, with 70% in the LAR group and 30% in the RAS group. The tumor location and stage were identical in both groups (not significant = NS). The overall postoperative mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups. (0% LAR; 0.5% RAS; NS). The postoperative morbidity was similar between the two groups (60% LAR vs 57% RAS; NS). The number of early surgical re-interventions within the first 30 days was similar (10% for the LAR group and 3% for the RAS group; NS). The rate of complete TME was similar (88% for the LAR group and 94% for the RAS group; NS). However, the rate of circumferential R1 was significantly higher in the LAR group (13%) compared to the RAS group (2%) (p = 0.009). The 3-year recurrence rate did not differ between the two groups (77% for both groups; NS). After a mean follow-up of three years, the incidence of anterior resection syndrome was significantly lower in the LAR group compared to the RAS group (54 vs 76%; p = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a RAS was found to be reliable for oncologic outcomes and morbidity. However, the expected benefits for functional outcomes were not observed. Therefore, the added value of RAS for rectal cancer needs to be reassessed in light of new laparoscopic technologies and patient management options.

Urinary and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of the study was to compare the protective effects of robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) on urinary and sexual function of patients. We conducted a systematic search in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies comparing the impact of RRCS and LRCS on urinary function and sexual function. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the Female Sexual Function Index(FSFI) were used to evaluate the urinary function and sexual function of patients. A total of 13 studies comprising 1964 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 3 randomized controlled trials, 5 retrospective cohort studies, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 2 propensity score-matched studies. Nine hundred and fifty-nine patients underwent RRCS and 1005 patients underwent LRCS. Statistical analysis of the IPSS scores indicated urinary function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively [mean difference (MD), - 1.06, 95% CI - 1.85 to - 0.28; and MD, - 0.96, 95% CI - 1.60 to - 0.32; and MD, - 1.09, 95% CI - 1.72 to - 0.46]. Statistical analysis of the IIEF-5 scores indicated male sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 1.76, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.72; and MD, 1.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.33; and MD, 1.05, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.01). Statistical analysis of the FSFI scores indicated female sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 2.86; 95% CI 1.38 to 4.35; and MD, 4.19; 95% CI 1.85 to 6.54). RRCS is more favorable than LRCS in preserving the urinary and sexual function of patients with rectal cancer.

Perceptions of theatre team members to robotic assisted surgery and the aid of technology in colorectal surgery

The implementation of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has brought in a change to the perception and roles of theatre staff, as well as the dynamics of the operative environment and team. This study aims to identify and describe current perceptions of theatre staff in the context of RAS. 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted in a tertiary level university hospital, where RAS is utilised in selected elective settings. Interviews were conducted by an experienced research nurse to staff of the colorectal department operating theatre (nursing, surgical and anaesthetics) with some experience in operating within open, laparoscopic and RAS surgical settings. Thematic analysis on all interviews was performed, with formation of preliminary themes. Respondents all discussed advantages of all modes of operating. All respondents appreciated the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, in the reduced physiological insult to patients. However, interviewees remarked on the current perceived limitations of RAS in terms of logistics. Some voiced apprehension and anxieties about the safety if an operation needs to be converted to open. An overarching theme with participants of all levels and backgrounds was the 'Teamwork' and the concept of the [robotic] team. The physical differences of RAS changes the traditional methods of communication, with the loss of face-to-face contact and the physical 'separation' of the surgeon from the rest of the operating team impacting theatre dynamics. It is vital to understand the staff cultures, concerns and perception to the use of this relatively new technology in colorectal surgery.

The urinary and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To compare the urinary and sexual outcomes between robot-assisted rectal cancer (RC) surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic RC surgery (LRCS) using a meta-analysis, searches were conducted of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was the primary outcome. Eleven studies (790 patients with RRCS and 888 with LRCS) were included. The IPSS scores were significantly lower for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3 months (weighted mean difference [WMD] =  - 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 1.8,-0.62, I2 = 89.9%), to 6 months (WMD =  - 1.13, 95% CI: - 1.74, - 0.52, I2 = 93.3%), and to 12 months (WMD =  - 0.93, 95% CI: - 1.59, - 0.26, I2 = 93.8%). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores were significantly higher for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3 months (WMD = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.28, 5.44, I2 = 92.7%). The female sexual function index (FSFI) scores were significantly higher for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3 months (WMD = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.76, I2 = 0), to 6 months (WMD = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.93, 2.79, I2 = 24.3%), and to 12 months (WMD = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.41, 2.93, I2 = 90.9%). RRCS also achieved a better recovery of the urological and sexual function than LRCS for patients with RC. Larger-scale prospective randomized control trials are needed to verify these results.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and contrast the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the treatment of obese patients. In February 2024, we carried out an exhaustive search of key global databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, limiting our focus to studies published in English and Chinese. We excluded reviews, protocols lacking published results, articles derived solely from conference abstracts, and studies not relevant to our research objectives. To analyze categorical variables, we utilized the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method along with random-effects models, calculating inverse variances and presenting the outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was determined when p values were less than 0.05. In our final meta-analysis, we included eight cohort studies, encompassing a total of 5,004 patients. When comparing the robotic surgery group to the laparoscopic group, the findings revealed that the robotic group experienced a longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 37.53 min, 95% (CI) 15.58-59.47; p = 0.0008), a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -0.68 days, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.10; p = 0.02), and reduced blood loss (WMD = -49.23 mL, 95% CI -64.31 to -34.14; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding overall complications, conversion rates, surgical site infections, readmission rates, lymph node yield, anastomotic leakage, and intestinal obstruction. The results of our study indicate that robot-assisted colorectal surgery offers benefits for obese patients by shortening the length of hospital stay and minimizing blood loss when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Nonetheless, it is associated with longer operation times and shows no significant difference in terms of overall complications, conversion rates, rehospitalization rates, and other similar metrics.

Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: single-center, retrospective, propensity score analyses

Although the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer are well known, the long-term oncologic outcomes of RALS compared with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) are not clear. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of RALS and CLS for rectal cancer using propensity score matching. This retrospective study included 185 patients with stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent radical surgery at our institute between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score analyses were performed with 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) as the primary endpoints. After case matching, the 3-year OS and 3-year RFS rates were 86.5% and 77.9% in the CLS group and 98.4% and 88.5% in the RALS group, respectively. Although there were no significant differences in OS (p = 0.195) or RFS (p = 0.518) between the groups, the RALS group had slightly better OS and RFS rates. 3-year cumulative (Cum) local recurrence (LR) and 3-year Cum distant metastasis (DM) were 9.7% and 8.7% in the CLS group and 4.5% and 10.8% in the RALS group, respectively. There were no significant differences in Cum-LR (p = 0.225) or Cum-DM (p = 0.318) between the groups. RALS is a reasonable surgical treatment option for patients with rectal cancer, with long-term outcomes similar to those of CLS in such patients.

Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes

Anatomical and physiological differences exist between sex, leading to variations in how diseases, such as rectal cancer, are prevalence and treatment outcomes of diseases including rectal cancer. In particular, in the case of rectal cancer, anatomical differences may be associated with surgical challenges, and these factors are believed to be important contributors to potential disparities in postoperative recovery, associated complications, and oncological outcomes between male and female patients. However, there is still ongoing debate regarding this matter. Significantly, the male pelvic anatomy is distinguished by its narrower dimensions, which can present surgical challenges and impede visual access during operative procedures, rendering it more complex than surgical interventions in the female pelvis. As a result, this anatomical difference leads to a greater occurrence of postoperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage. Moreover, the pelvis houses nerves that are vital for urinary and genital functions, underscoring the need to assess the potential risks of sexual and urinary dysfunction in rectal cancer surgery. These postoperative complications can significantly impact the quality of life; therefore, it is imperative to perform surgery with an understanding of the structural differences between sexes. Therefore, to address the limitations imposed by anatomical structures, new approaches such as robotic surgery, trans-anal total mesorectal excision, and intraoperative neuromonitoring are being introduced. Furthermore, it is essential to conduct research into fundamental mechanisms that may give rise to differences in surgical outcomes and oncological results between sexes. By comprehending the disparities between males and females, we can advance toward personalized treatments. Consequently, this review outlines variations in surgical approaches, complications, and treatments for rectal cancer in male and female patients.

Patient Reported Outcomes following Cancer of the Rectum (PROCaRe): protocol of a prospective multicentre international study

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer surgery presents challenges in achieving good oncological results and preserving functional outcomes. Different surgical approaches, including open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal techniques, have been employed, but there is a lack of consensus on the optimal approach, particularly in terms of functional results. This study aims to assess bowel function and to compare outcomes of patients that had undergone surgery for mid-low rectal cancer across different surgical approaches.

METHOD

This is an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria are patients diagnosed with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection, eligible for different surgical approaches for total mesorectal excision (TME). Data will be collected using validated questionnaires assessing bowel, sexual and urinary function, and quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include short-term postoperative results. Data will be collected at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after index surgery or stoma reversal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide insights into the impact of different approaches for TME on bowel, sexual and urinary function, and overall QOL of patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. The findings will provide important information to optimise the surgical strategy and to improve patient care in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04936581 (registered 23 June 2021).

Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, while in some respects equivalent or even preferable to open surgery, is challenged in specific conditions where the tumor is located in the middle and lower third of the rectum. Robotic surgery equipped with a superior arm of machinery and gained better visualization can compensate for the deficiency of the laparoscopic approach. This study adopted a propensity matched analysis to compare the functional and oncological short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. All patients who underwent proctectomy have been collected prospectively between December 2019 and November 2022. After censoring for inclusion criteria, we performed a propensity matching analysis. A detailed collection of post-operative examination indicators was performed, while the K-M survival curves were plotted to analyze post-operative oncology outcomes. The LARS scale was designed to evaluate the anal function of patients in the form of questionnaires. Totally, 215 patients underwent robotic operations while 1011 patients selected laparoscopic operations. Patients matched 1∶1 by propensity score were divided into the robotic and laparoscopic groups, 210 cases were included in each group. All patients underwent a follow-up for a median period of 18.3 months. Robotic surgery was connected with an enhanced recovery including the earlier time to first flatus passage without ileostomy (P = 0.050), the earlier time to liquid diet without ileostomy (P = 0.040), lower incidence of urinary retention (P = 0.043), better anal function 1 month after LAR without ileostomy (P < 0.001), longer operative time (\P = 0.042), compared with laparoscopic operations. The oncological outcomes and occurrence of other complications were comparable between the two approaches. For mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery could be recognized as an effective technique with identical short-term outcomes of oncology and better anal function in comparison to laparoscopic surgery. However, multi-center studies with larger samples are expected to validate the long-term outcomes of robotic surgery.

The erectile and ejaculatory implications of the surgical management of rectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Although advances in surgical technology and technique have decreased mortality rates, surviving patients often experience sexual dysfunction as a common complication. The development of the lower anterior resection has greatly decreased the use of the radical abdominoperineal resection surgery, but even the less radical surgery can result in sexual dysfunction, including erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction. Improving the knowledge of the underlying causes of sexual dysfunction in this context and developing effective strategies for preventing and treating these adverse effects are essential to improving the quality of life for postoperative rectal cancer patients. This article aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction in postoperative rectal cancer patients, including their pathophysiology and time course and strategies for prevention and treatment.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of long-term survival and urogenital functional outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgical technology has been widely introduced and applied in various fields of surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze long-term oncological and urogenital functional outcomes following laparoscopic/robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We identified studies that compared oncological and functional outcomes following laparoscopic TME (LTME) and robotic TME (RTME) for treatment of rectal cancer over the past 16 years. Data related to overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) were subjected to meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There was no difference in long-term OS and DFS in the pooled data. Compared with LTME, there were significant differences in the score of IPSS at 3, 6 and 12 months for RTME, in the pooled data for male patients. There were significant differences in IIEF score for male patients at 3 and 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LTME, RTME has better preservation of urinary and sexual functions and comparable long-term oncological outcome in rectal cancer.

From organ preservation to selective surgery: How immunotherapy changes colorectal surgery?

The emergence of immunotherapy has revolutionized the traditional treatment paradigm of colorectal cancer (CRC). Among them, immune checkpoint blockade has become the first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and has made significant progress in the treatment of locally advanced colorectal cancer (LACRC). We reviewed a series of clinical trials that have made breakthrough progress. We will emphasize the breakthrough progress in achieving organ preservation in patients with high microsatellite instability or DNA mismatch repair deficiency (MSI-H/dMMR), and based on this, we propose the concept of selective surgery, which includes selectively removing or preserving lymph nodes, with the aim of proving our idea through more research in the future.

Early outcomes from the Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis study (MIRCAST)

BACKGROUND

The impact of method of anastomosis and minimally invasive surgical technique on surgical and clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy is uncertain. The aim of the MIRCAST study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (ICA and ECA respectively), each using either a laparoscopic approach or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomies for benign or malignant tumours.

METHODS

This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational, monitored, non-randomized, parallel, four-cohort study (laparoscopic ECA; laparoscopic ICA; robot-assisted ECA; robot-assisted ICA). High-volume surgeons (at least 30 minimally invasive right colectomy procedures/year) from 59 hospitals across 12 European countries treated patients over a 3-year interval The primary composite endpoint was 30-day success, defined by two measures of efficacy-absence of surgical wound infection and of any major complication within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: overall complications, conversion rate, duration of operation, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Propensity score analysis was used for comparison of ICA with ECA, and robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Some 1320 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (laparoscopic ECA, 555; laparoscopic ICA, 356; robot-assisted ECA, 88; robot-assisted ICA, 321). No differences in the co-primary endpoint at 30 days after surgery were observed between cohorts (7.2 and 7.6 per cent in ECA and ICA groups respectively; 7.8 and 6.6 per cent in laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups). Lower overall complication rates were observed after ICA, specifically less ileus, and nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted procedures.

CONCLUSION

No difference in the composite outcome of surgical wound infections and severe postoperative complications was found between intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis or laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery.

Immunotherapies in non-metastatic gastrointestinal cancers

PURPOSE

Over the last decade, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have emerged as cornerstone in the treatment of many metastatic tumour types, including gastrointestinal cancers. In many solid tumours, the effective therapies in the metastatic field are progressively brought into the curative setting. Consequently, earlier tumoural settings have become a field of experiment for immunotherapies. In melanoma, lung, and bladder cancers, excellent results were recorded, possibly explained by differences in the tumour microenvironment between metastatic and non-metastatic settings. In gastrointestinal (GI) Oncology, nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor to become a standard-of-care adjuvant treatment after curative surgery for oesophagal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

We herein discuss the results of a selection of the most relevant studies presented/published over the last 18 months testing immunotherapies in non-metastatic GI cancers. Among immunotherapies, ICI have been investigated in pre-, peri- and postoperative setting across tumour types, alone or in combination with chemo- and/or radiotherapy. Vaccines are also a new field of investigation.

SUMMARY

Promising results from two studies (NCT04165772 and NICHE-2 study) demonstrating never-seen-before responses to neoadjuvant immunotherapy in MMR deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancers raise hope for improving the patients' outcome and developing organ-sparing strategies in this situation.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Protective effect of laparoscopic functional total mesorectal excision on urinary and sexual functions in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Urinary and sexual dysfunctions are among the most common complications in rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to investigate the protective effect of laparoscopic functional total mesorectum excision (TME) on urinary and sexual functions in male patients.

METHODS

A total of 248 male patients with mid-low rectal cancer were recruited in this study between February 2017 and July 2020. To overcome selection bias, we performed a 1:1 match using six variables, including age, BMI, ASA score, tumor distance, clinical T stage, and tumor size. The urinary function was assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), sexual function was assessed by a 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and ejaculation grading at postoperative 3 and 12 months.

RESULTS

79 patients received functional TME surgery (FTME group), and 169 patients received routine TME surgery (RTME group). After the propensity score, 79 pairs were balanced and analyzed. Patients in the FTME group showed a lower IPSS score and higher IIEF-5 score than patients in the RTME group at postoperative 3 and 12 months. The incidence of ejaculation dysfunction for patients in the FTME group was lower than patients in the RTME group at postoperative 3 and 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic functional total mesorectal excision was beneficial to faster recovery of urinary and sexual function for patients with rectal cancer, and it could be used as a superior surgical technique for pelvic autonomic nerve preservation in mid-low rectal cancer.

Locally advanced rectal cancer patients with mismatch repair protein deficiency can obtain better pathological response after regional chemoembolization

Background and objective

Preoperative transcatheter rectal arterial chemoembolization (TRACE) can enhance the pathological response rate in some patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, how to accurately identify patients who can benefit from this neoadjuvant modality therapy remains to be further studied. Deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) protein plays a crucial role in maintaining genome stability. A proportion of patients with rectal cancer are caused by the loss of mismatch repair (MMR) protein. Given the role of MMR in guiding the efficacy in patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC), this study is designed to evaluate the effect of dMMR status on the response to neoadjuvant therapy through a retrospective analysis.

Methods

We launched a retrospective study. First, we selected patients with LARC from the database, and these patients had received preoperative TRACE combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Then, the tumor tissue biopsied by colonoscopy before intervention was taken for immunohistochemistry. According to the expression of MLH-1, MSH-2, MSH-6 and PMS-2, these patients were divided into dMMR protein group and proficient MMR (pMMR) protein group. All patients underwent pathological examination at the end of neoadjuvant therapy, either surgically excised tissue or colonoscopically biopsied tissue. The end point was the pathologic complete response (pCR) after TRACE combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Results

From January 2013 to January 2021, a total of 82 patients with LARC received preoperative TRACE combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and the treatment was well tolerated. Among 82 patients, there were 42 patients in the pMMR group and 40 patients in the dMMR group. 69 patients returned to the hospital for radical resection. In 8 patients, the colonoscopy showed good tumor regression grade after 4 weeks of interventional therapy and refused surgery. The remaining five patients were neither surgically treated nor reexamined by colonoscopy. 77 patients were eventually enrolled in the study. Individually, the pCR rates of these two groups (10%, 4/40 vs. 43%, 16/37) showed significant difference (P < 0.05). Biomarker analysis indicated that patients with dMMR protein had a better propensity for pCR.

Conclusion

In patients with LARC, preoperative TRACE combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy showed good pCR rates, especially in patients with dMMR. Patients with MMR protein defects have a better propensity for pCR.

Current Status of Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery

Development of surgical support robots began in the 1980s as a navigation and auxiliary device for endoscopic surgery. For remote surgery on the battlefield, a master-slave-type surgical support robot was developed, in which a console surgeon operates the robot at will. The da Vinci surgical system, which currently dominates the global robotic surgery market, received United States Food and Drug Administration and regulatory approval in Japan in 2000 and 2009 respectively. The latest, fourth generation, da Vinci Xi has a good field of view via a three-dimensional monitor, highly operable forceps, a motion scale function, and a tremor-filtered articulated function. Gastroenterological tract robotic surgery is safe and minimally invasive when accessing and operating on the esophagus, stomach, colon, and rectum. The learning curve is said to be short, and robotic surgery will likely be standardized soon. Therefore, robotic surgery training should be systematized for young surgeons so that it can be further standardized and later adapted to a wider range of surgeries. This article reviews current trends and potential developments in robotic surgery.

Surgical outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open low anterior resection after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer

PURPOSE

We investigated the surgical outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for lower rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (pCRT).

METHODS

A total of 175 patients with lower rectal cancer who underwent LAR after pCRT between 2005 and 2020 were stratified into open (OS, n = 65), laparoscopic (LS, n = 64), and robotic surgery (RS, n = 46) groups. We compared the clinical, surgical, and pathological results among the three groups.

RESULTS

The RS and LS groups had less blood loss than the OS group (p < 0.0001). The operating time in the RS group was longer than in the LS and OS groups (p < 0.0001). The RS group had a significantly longer mean distal margin than the LS and OS groups (25.4 mm vs. 20.7 mm and 20.3 mm, respectively; p = 0.026). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complication rate among the groups. The local recurrence rate in the RS group was comparable to those in the LS and OS groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic LAR after pCRT was performed safely for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer. It provided a longer distal margin and equivalent local control rates.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis

The benefits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remain controversial. Only a few studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of RALS following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of RALS versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) after NCRT for rectal cancer. Propensity score matching of 111 consecutive patients who underwent RALS or CLS after NCRT for rectal adenocarcinoma between February 2014 and February 2022 was performed. Among them, 60 matched patients were enrolled and their short-term outcomes were compared. Although operative time, conversion rate to open laparotomy and blood loss were comparable, the incidence of postoperative complications, including anastomotic leakage, was significantly lower, urinary retention tended to be lower, and the days to soft diet intake and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the RALS than the CLS group. No postoperative mortality was observed in either group, and there were no significant differences in terms of resection margins and number of lymph nodes dissected. RALS after NCRT for rectal cancer is safe and technically feasible, and has acceptable short-term outcomes. Further studies are required for validation of the long-term oncological outcomes.

Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis

Significant advancements have been made over the last 30 years in the use of minimally invasive techniques for curative and restorative operations in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and robotic approaches to subtotal colectomy (including in the urgent setting), total proctocolectomy, completion proctectomy, and pelvic pouch creation. Data show equivalent or improved short-term postoperative outcomes with minimally invasive techniques compared to open surgery, and equivalent or improved long-term bowel function, sexual function, and fertility. Overall, while minimally invasive techniques are safe and feasible for properly selected UC patients, surgeons must remember to abide by the principles of high-quality proctectomy and pouch creation and convert to open if necessary.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Whether rectal cancer surgery by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery provides beneficial advantages remains controversial. Although favorable outcomes in terms of the safety and technical feasibility of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery have been demonstrated for rectal cancer, long-term oncological outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery have only been examined in a few studies. This retrospective study of subjects who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery evaluated short- and long-term outcomes of consecutive rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Between November 2016 and January 2020, we analyzed the records of 62 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma without distant metastasis to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Tumors were located in the lower or mid-rectum (88.7%) in most patients. The median operative time was 357 min. No patient received transfusions, and the median blood loss was 10.5 ml. Open laparotomy was not required in any patient. A Clavien-Dindo classification of all grades was observed in 12 patients (19.4%). Positive radial margin was not observed in any patient. Duration of median follow-up was 40.5 mo, while 3-y overall survival and 3-y relapse-free survival rates were 96.8% and 85.0%, respectively. The local recurrence rate was 3.4%.

CONCLUSION

Favorable short- and long-term outcomes demonstrated robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was safe and technically feasible for rectal cancer.

Patient-Related Functional Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Rectal Surgery Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained significant momentum in rectal cancer surgery. Most studies focus on short-term and oncological outcomes, showing similar outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Increasing survivorship mandates greater emphasis on quality of life and long-term function.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare quality of life and urinary, sexual, and lower GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgeries.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials Register, and Cochrane Library-identified articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic rectal resections was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures were quality of life and urinary, sexual, and GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection patient groups. Where comparable data were available, results were pooled for analysis.

RESULTS

The initial search revealed 1777 papers; 101 were reviewed in full, and 14 studies were included for review. Eleven assessed male sexual function; 7 favored robotic surgery, and the remaining studies showed no significant difference. Pooled analysis of 5 studies reporting rates of male sexual dysfunction at 12 months showed significantly lower rates after robotic surgery (OR, 0.51; p = 0.043). Twelve studies compared urinary function. Six favored robotic surgery, but in 2 studies, a difference was seen at 6 months but not sustained at 12 months. Pooled analysis of 4 studies demonstrated significantly better urinary function scores at 12 months after robotic surgery (OR, 0.26; p = 0.016). Quality of life and GI function were equivalent, but very little data exist for these parameters.

LIMITATIONS

A small number of studies compare outcomes between these groups; only 2 are randomized. Different scoring systems limit comparisons and pooling of data.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available data suggest that robotic rectal cancer resection improves male sexual and urinary functions when compared with laparoscopy, but there is no difference in quality of life or GI function. Future studies should report all facets of functional outcomes using standardized scoring systems.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

The advantages of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remain controversial. This study clarified and compared the short-term outcomes of RALS for rectal cancer with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

The records of 303 consecutive patients who underwent RALS or CLS for rectal adenocarcinoma between November 2016 and November 2021 were analyzed using propensity score-matched analysis. After matching, 188 patients were enrolled in our study to compare short-term outcomes, such as operative results, postoperative complications, and pathological findings, in each group.

RESULTS

After matching, baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Although operative time in the RALS group was significantly longer than in the CLS group (p < 0.0001), the conversion rate to open laparotomy and the postoperative complication rate in the RALS group were significantly lower than in the CLS group (p = 0.0240 and p = 0.0109, respectively). Blood loss was comparable between groups. In the RALS group, postoperative hospital stay and days to soft diet were significantly shorter than those in the CLS group (p = 0.0464 and p < 0.0001, respectively). No postoperative mortality was observed in either group and significant differences were observed in resection margins and number of lymph nodes harvested.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was safe, technically feasible, and had acceptable short-term outcomes. Further studies are required to validate long-term oncological outcomes.

Needs assessment for patient-centered education and outcome metrics in robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

From clinical experience, many patients undergoing robotic assisted surgery (RAS) have a poor understanding of the technology. To ensure informed consent and appropriate expectations, a needs assessment for patient-centered education and outcome metrics in RAS is warranted. Our goal was to perform an assessment of patient understanding, comfort with robotic technology, and ability to obtain critical information from their surgeon when undergoing RAS.

METHODS

Twenty patients planned for RAS by three surgeons were asked to complete a six-item Likert agreement scale survey prior to signing informed consent. The study coordinator administered surveys, while the surgeon left the room. Indicator statements were crafted to reduce bias and two-way evaluated for consistency. The surgeons were additionally asked their perception of each patient's understanding and comfort with RAS. Frequency statistics and tendencies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Surgeons strongly agreed all patients appropriately understood how RAS functioned and would ask more questions before signing consent, if needed. Patients were predominately not familiar with RAS and felt surgeons did not explain how RAS worked. There was wide variability on if patients understood how RAS worked for their treatment. Overall, patients were not completely comfortable with RAS for their care, did not understand the risks of RAS compared to other approaches, and did not feel their surgeon understood what they needed to know to make informed decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This needs assessment demonstrated critical gaps in patient knowledge about RAS, surgeon communication skills, and the ability of surgeons to know what was important from the patient perspective. The development of RAS patient-centered education and outcome metrics could help address these gaps.

Evaluation of effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgical technology on genitourinary function after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Because the recovery of genitourinary function after total mesorectal excision (TME) is affected by multiple factors, the role of robot-assisted TME technology in postoperative function in previous studies is still controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of robotic technology on the recovery of genitourinary function after TME for rectal cancer by analysing the correlations between influencing factors of genitourinary function and robotic surgery.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and January 2020, patients with rectal cancer (cT1-3NxM0) were registered. Genitourinary function was assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) test, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and urodynamic examination before surgery and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Genitourinary function was compared between the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) groups, and the correlative factors associated with postoperative genitourinary function were analysed using the generalized estimated equation (GEE).

RESULTS

Compared with L-TME, R-TME showed a superior IPSS, voiding volume, residual urine volume and IIEF score during the early postoperative period. According to the GEE analysis, postoperative genitourinary function was positively correlated with laparoscopic anterior resection/abdomen perineal resection (LAR/APR) but negatively correlated with tumour size, tumour distance to anus, TNM, adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, complete TME, circumferential resection margin (CRM), blood loss, diverting stoma, conversion, and anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

Due to the important role of robotic surgical technology on the influential factors of postoperative genitourinary function and the superiority of identifying and preserving autonomic nerves, robotic technology is conducive to the early recovery of postoperative urogenital function while adhering to oncological dissection principles. No significant difference was found between the da Vinci R-TME and MicroHand R-TME groups.

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.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for lower rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

There have been reports about robotic surgery for rectal cancer with chemoradiotherapy (CRT), but only a few studies have compared the use of robotic surgery with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The aim of our study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic surgery with and without NAC for lower rectal cancer and to examine the effects of NAC on robotic surgery.

METHODS

From January 2016 to July 2021, we compared the short-term outcomes of 45 patients who did not undergo NAC and 55 patients who underwent NAC.

RESULTS

The rate of sphincter-preserving surgeries was higher in the NAC group than in the non-NAC group (P = .024). The total operative time was significantly longer in the NAC group than in the non-NAC group (P < .001). The rate of lateral lymph node dissection was significantly higher in the NAC group than in the non-NAC group (P < .001). No significant differences were identified in the rate of incisional surgical site infections (SSI), organ/space SSI postoperative bleeding, small bowel obstruction, anastomotic leakage, urinary dysfunction, or urinary infections between the groups. There were eight incidences of lateral lymph node metastasis (15%) and two cases with positive resection margins (4.0%) in the NAC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery after NAC has few complications and a higher sphincter-preserving rate that without NAC.

PD-1 Blockade in Mismatch Repair-Deficient, Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation followed by surgical resection of the rectum is a standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. A subset of rectal cancer is caused by a deficiency in mismatch repair. Because mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer is responsive to programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade in the context of metastatic disease, it was hypothesized that checkpoint blockade could be effective in patients with mismatch repair-deficient, locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

We initiated a prospective phase 2 study in which single-agent dostarlimab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was administered every 3 weeks for 6 months in patients with mismatch repair-deficient stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma. This treatment was to be followed by standard chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Patients who had a clinical complete response after completion of dostarlimab therapy would proceed without chemoradiotherapy and surgery. The primary end points are sustained clinical complete response 12 months after completion of dostarlimab therapy or pathological complete response after completion of dostarlimab therapy with or without chemoradiotherapy and overall response to neoadjuvant dostarlimab therapy with or without chemoradiotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients have completed treatment with dostarlimab and have undergone at least 6 months of follow-up. All 12 patients (100%; 95% confidence interval, 74 to 100) had a clinical complete response, with no evidence of tumor on magnetic resonance imaging, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography, endoscopic evaluation, digital rectal examination, or biopsy. At the time of this report, no patients had received chemoradiotherapy or undergone surgery, and no cases of progression or recurrence had been reported during follow-up (range, 6 to 25 months). No adverse events of grade 3 or higher have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Mismatch repair-deficient, locally advanced rectal cancer was highly sensitive to single-agent PD-1 blockade. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the duration of response. (Funded by the Simon and Eve Colin Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04165772.).

Post-Operative Functional Outcomes in Early Age Onset Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Impairment of bowel, urogenital and fertility-related function in patients treated for rectal cancer is common. While the rate of rectal cancer in the young (<50 years) is rising, there is little data on functional outcomes in this group.

METHODS

The REACCT international collaborative database was reviewed and data on eligible patients analysed. Inclusion criteria comprised patients with a histologically confirmed rectal cancer, <50 years of age at time of diagnosis and with documented follow-up including functional outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1428 (n=1428) patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. Metastatic disease was present at diagnosis in 13%. Of these, 40% received neoadjuvant therapy and 50% adjuvant chemotherapy. The incidence of post-operative major morbidity was 10%. A defunctioning stoma was placed for 621 patients (43%); 534 of these proceeded to elective restoration of bowel continuity. The median follow-up time was 42 months. Of this cohort, a total of 415 (29%) reported persistent impairment of functional outcomes, the most frequent of which was bowel dysfunction (16%), followed by bladder dysfunction (7%), sexual dysfunction (4.5%) and infertility (1%).

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of patients with early-onset rectal cancer who undergo surgery report persistent impairment of functional status. Patients should be involved in the discussion regarding their treatment options and potential impact on quality of life. Functional outcomes should be routinely recorded as part of follow up alongside oncological parameters.

Analysis of bowel function, urogenital function, and long-term follow-up outcomes associated with robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgical approaches to total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The present study comparatively analyzed short-term clinical effectiveness and long-term follow-up endpoints associated with robotic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (LAS) when used to treat low rectal cancer.

METHOD

Within such a single-center retrospective cohort analysis, low rectal cancer patients that underwent RAS (n=200) or LAS (n=486) between January 2015 and beginning of July 2018 were enrolled.

RESULTS

The mean operative durations in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 249±64 min and 203±47 min, respectively (P<0.001). Temporary ileostomy rates in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 64.5% and 51.6% (P = 0.002). In addition, major variations across such cohorts regarding catheter removal timing, time to liquid intake, time to first leaving bed, and length of hospitalization (all P<0.001). This distal resection margin distance within the RAS cohort was diminished in comparison to LAS cohort (P=0.004). For patients within the LAS cohort, the time required to recover from reduced urinary/female sexual function was > 6 months post-surgery (P<0.0001), whereas within the RAS cohort this interval was 3 months (P<0.0001). At 6 months post-surgery, male sexual function within RAS cohort was improved in comparison to LAS cohort (P<0.001). At 6 months post-surgery, Wexner scores revealed similar results (P<0.001). No major variations within overall or disease-free survival were identified across these cohorts at 3 or 5 years post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic sphincter-preserving surgery is a safe and effective surgical technique in low rectal patients in terms of postoperative oncological safety and long-term endpoints. And the RAS strategy provides certain additional benefits with respect to short-term urogenital/anorectal functional recovery in treated patients compared to LAS.

Male urogenital function after robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort study

Background

Urogenital dysfunction is recognized as a serious complication affecting patient quality of life after rectal cancer surgery to treat rectal cancer; however, the studies focus on the urogenital function after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery are limited.

Methods

Male patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) were prospectively enrolled. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scale were used to compare the urogenital function of the two groups preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

Results

Eighty-nine patients who planned to undergo R-TME and L-TME were prospectively enrolled; 77 patients of these patients (86.5%) completed all questionnaires at all time points and were thus included in the final analysis. Of the included patients, 38 underwent R-TME and 39 underwent L-TME. There was no significant difference in age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor location, neoadjuvant therapy, operation method, postoperative pathological results and adjuvant therapy between the two groups. Preoperative urogenital function was similar in both groups; however, the IPSS was significantly lower in R-TME patients than that in T-TME patients at 6 months and 12 months [(7.82 ± 2.25 vs. 9.95 ± 3.01, P = 0.006; 7.62 ± 2.5 vs. 9.12 ± 2.64, P = 0.012)]. IIEF-5 scores decreased 3 months after R-TME and L-TME surgery (14.87 ± 3.27 vs. 13.92 ± 3.62, p = 0.231) and then gradually increased; at 12 months, IIEF-5 scores were comparable to those at baseline in both groups. IIEF-5 scores were higher in R-TME patients than those in L-TME patients at 6 months (18.55 ± 3.45 vs. 16.75 ± 3.26, P = 0.021), but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 12 months (21.22 ± 3.06 vs. 19.95 ± 3.03, P = 0.071).

Conclusions

The robotic approach for TME was associated with more rapid restoration of male urogenital function than the laparoscopic approach.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resections for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgery has evolved with the advent of laparoscopic techniques and now robotic-assisted surgery. There is significant literature supporting the use of laparoscopic techniques over open surgery with evidence of enhanced post-operative recovery, reduced use of opioids, smaller incisions and equivalent oncological outcomes. Robotic minimally invasive surgery addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, providing surgical precision and improvements in perception and dexterity with a resulting decrease in tissue damage.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent robotic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction in our institution since our robotic programme began in 2017. Patient demographics were identified via electronic databases and patient charts. A matched cohort of laparoscopic cases was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 51 consecutive robotic-assisted anterior resections were identified and case matched with laparoscopic resections for comparison. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04), reduced initial post-operative analgesia requirements (p < 0.01) and no significant difference in time to bowel movement or stoma functioning (p = 0.84). All patients had an R0 resection, and there was no statistical difference in lymph node yield between the groups (p = 0.14). Robotic surgery was associated with a longer operative duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this early experience, robotic surgery has proven feasible and safe and is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in terms of completeness of resection and recovery. As costs and operating times decline and as technology progresses, robotic surgery may one day replace traditional laparoscopic techniques.

National differences in implementation of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer and the influence on short-term outcomes

Background

The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new surgical techniques and the effect on postoperative outcomes are important for quality assurance, can show potential areas for country-specific improvement, and might be illustrative and supportive for similar implementation programs in other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate differences in patient selection, applied techniques, and results of minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer between the Netherlands and Sweden.

Methods

Patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for T1-3 colon or rectal cancer (2012–2018) registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit or Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry were included. Time trends in the application of MIS were determined. Outcomes were compared for time periods with a similar level of MIS implementation (Netherlands 2012–2013 versus Sweden 2017–2018). Multilevel analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse short-term outcomes.

Results

A total of 46,095 Dutch and 8,819 Swedish patients undergoing MIS for colorectal cancer were included. In Sweden, MIS implementation was approximately 5 years later than in the Netherlands, with more robotic surgery and lower volumes per hospital. Although conversion rates were higher in Sweden, oncological and surgical outcomes were comparable. MIS in the Netherlands for the years 2012–2013 resulted in a higher reoperation rate for colon cancer and a higher readmission rate but lower non-surgical complication rates for rectal cancer if compared with MIS in Sweden during 2017–2018.

Conclusion

This study showed that the implementation of MIS for colorectal cancer occurred later in Sweden than the Netherlands, with comparable outcomes despite lower volumes. Our study demonstrates that new surgical techniques can be implemented at a national level in a controlled and safe way, with thorough quality assurance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08974-1.

Functional results after mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparative study among surgical approaches

BACKGROUND

We analyzed the evolution of genitourinary dysfunctions in patients undergoing surgical treatment for rectal cancer, and compared open surgery, laparoscopy, robotic and TaTME.

METHODS

Functional outcomes were evaluate using standardized questionnaires, compiled at the start of treatment, after the end of Radiotherapy, at 1 and 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

In 72 patients 37.5% had low, 27.8% middle, and 34.7% high rectal cancers. Open technique was performed in 25% of cases, while 29.2% underwent laparoscopy, 20.8% TaTME and 25% robotic. We noted a deterioration in urogenital function: surgical technique can influence the result both in urinary and male sexual function but not ejaculation. Robotics and laparoscopy bring better outcomes than open surgery and TaTME. Female sexuality worsening seems not influenced by the technique. In general age, stage, complications and anastomotic leakage appear to be predictive factors for functional dysfunctions. As reported in literature rectal cancer treatment leads to urogenital worsening: this seems to be progressive in male sexuality only, while female one and urinary function show a slight improvement in the first months, although a full recovery possibility is discussed. Is also reported how robotic and laparoscopy have a lower functional impact. TaTME has gained consensus thank to the excellent oncological and function outcomes, but in our study leads to worse results.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-invasive techniques guarantee the same oncological result than more invasive ones, but with better functional outcomes and tolerability; robotic surgery seems to be slight superior than laparoscopy, but with longer operative time.

Lower Incidence of Postoperative Urinary Retention in Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer Compared with Laparoscopic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The incidence and clinical significance of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) remain high. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of POUR and related risk factors in patients who underwent total mesorectal excision (TMR) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected colorectal database from a single center. Data from patients who underwent surgery for low rectal cancer between September 2006 and May 2017 were analyzed to assess the risk factors of POUR. POUR was considered inability to void after urinary catheter removal requiring catheter reinsertion and difficulty in bladder emptying requiring intermittent catheterization.

RESULTS

Of 555 patients with low rectal cancer, 78 (14.1%) developed POUR. Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, laparoscopic TMR (odds ratio [OR]; 2.114, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.212-3.689, p = 0.008) and postoperative ileus (OR; 2.389, 95% CI; 1.282-4.450, p = 0.006) were independent risk factors of POUR. Male gender, advanced age, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, longer operative time, abdominoperineal resection, and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection were not associated with POUR. Advanced age over 65 years also failed to show statistical significance (OR; 1.604, 95% CI; 0.965-2.668, p = 0.068).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach and postoperative ileus are risk factors for POUR after low rectal cancer surgery. We postulate that the benefits of robotic surgical systems compared to a laparoscopic approach may reduce the incidence of POUR.

A Case of Robotic Posterior Rectopexy for Full-thickness Rectal Prolapse

We describe our experience with robotic posterior rectopexy for a patient with full-thickness rectal prolapse. To our knowledge, this is the first report of such a case in the literature. A 94-year-old woman presented with a history of gradually worsening rectal prolapse. On examination, we found that the rectum was completely prolapsed, and we observed a prolapsed intestinal tract. Surgery was indicated and robotic rectopexy was performed without intraoperative complications. The postoperative course was uneventful, and she was discharged 10 days after the operation. One year later, there were no signs of recurrence. Robotic surgery has become common in recent years. We used robotic surgery for rectopexy, including the suturing procedure. Suturing in robotic surgery is easier than that in laparoscopic surgery, and we demonstrated that robotic rectopexy could be safely and easily performed. The trial was registered in the UMIN clinical trial registry (number 000040378).

Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis

Subtotal colectomy (STC) or total proctocolectomy (TPC) and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed in two or three stages remain the procedure of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Minimally invasive laparoscopic approaches for STC and IPAA have been established for over a decade, having been shown to reduce postoperative pain, length of stay, and improve fertility. However "straight-stick" laparoscopy has ergonomic and visual disadvantages in the pelvis, which may contribute to IPAA failure. The robotic platform was developed to overcome these limitations. Robotic STC is associated with lower conversion rates and earlier return of bowel function with acceptably longer operative time (mean, 28 minutes) than laparoscopic STC. The robotic approach has also been shown in case series to be safe in urgent settings. Robotic IPAA is associated with lower blood loss and length of stay than laparoscopic IPAA. Robotic TPC/IPAA has been shown in small case series to be safe and feasible despite longer operating times.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies: intra- and postoperative outcomes of 683 patients

Background

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more and more popularity over the last years. It seems to be advantageous to laparoscopic surgery in selected situations, especially in confined regions like a narrow male pelvis in rectal surgery. Whether robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies can serve as safe training operations for less frequent, low anterior resections for rectal cancer is still under debate. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate intra- and postoperative results of robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) compared to laparoscopic (LSC) surgery in left-sided colectomies.

Methods

Between June 2015 and December 2019, 683 patients undergoing minimally invasive left-sided colectomies in two Swiss, high-volume colorectal centers were included. Intra- and postoperative outcome parameters were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 179 patients undergoing RAL and 504 patients undergoing LSC were analyzed. Baseline characteristics showed similar results. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0.6% of RAL and 2.0% of LSC patients (p = 0.193). Differences in postoperative complications graded Dindo ≥ 3 were not statistically significant (RAL 3.9% vs. LSC 6.3%, p = 0.227). Occurrence of anastomotic leakages showed no statistically significant difference [RAL n = 2 (1.1%), LSC n = 8 (1.6%), p = 0.653]. Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conversions to open surgery were significantly higher in the LSC group (6.2% vs.1.7%, p = 0.018), while stoma formation was similar in both groups [RAL n = 1 (0.6%), LSC n = 5 (1.0%), p = 0.594]. Operative time was longer in the RAL group (300 vs. 210.0 min, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies are safe and feasible compared to laparoscopic resections. Intra- and postoperative complications are similar in both groups. Most notably, the rate of anastomotic leakages is similar. Compared to laparoscopic resections, the analyzed robotic-assisted resections have longer operative times but less conversion rates. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies as training procedures for low anterior resections.