Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

How robotic platforms are revolutionizing colorectal surgery techniques: a comparative review

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades, robotic technology has fundamentally transformed the field of colorectal surgery by providing surgeons with unprecedented levels of precision and control. Nevertheless, robotic surgery presents certain challenges such as prolonged operating times, high costs, limited accessibility, and the necessity for specialized training.

AREAS COVERED

This comparative review analyzes the impact of robotic platforms on colorectal surgery and its outcomes, with the expanding market of this technology. The major databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholars were searched using the key term 'robotic assisted surgery,' 'robotic platforms,' and 'colorectal surgery' to identify relevant articles as of August 2024. The most utilized robotic platforms currently available on the market - Da Vinci, Versius, Senhance, and Revo-I - are compared through their peri- and post-operative outcomes, including operative duration, blood loss, hospitalization period, oncological outcomes, and cost, providing a comprehensive insight into the future of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic surgery significantly improves patient outcomes, including shorter postoperative recovery times and effective cancer resection margins. However, challenges faced with these platforms include longer intraoperative times, arm clashing, the need for bedside assistance, and cost. Nevertheless, with the evolution toward managing more complex rectal cancer cases and more challenging dissection planes, the need for robotic platforms will only grow.

Comparative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer at High Risk of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin

BACKGROUND

Concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of robotic proctectomy compared with open proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer with a high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement.

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of surrogate cancer outcomes after robotic versus open proctectomy in this subpopulation.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Three academic hospitals (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Rochester) with data available through the Mayo Data Explorer platform.

PATIENTS

Patients at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement were selected on the basis of the MRI-based definition from the MERCURY I and II trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate of pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (≤1 mm), mesorectal grading, and rate of distal margin involvement.

RESULTS

Out of 413 patients, 125 (30%) underwent open and 288 (70%) underwent robotic proctectomy. Open proctectomy was significantly associated with a greater proportion of cT4 tumors (39.3% vs 24.8%, p = 0.021), multivisceral/concomitant resections (40.8% vs 18.4%, p < 0.001), and less frequent total neoadjuvant therapy use (17.1% vs 47.1%, p = 0.001). Robotic proctectomy was less commonly associated with pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (7.3% vs 17.6%, p = 0.002), including after adjustment for cT stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and multivisceral resection (OR 0.326; 95% CI, 0.157-0.670, p = 0.002). Propensity score matching for 66 patients per group and related multivariable analysis no longer indicated any reduction of circumferential positive margin rate associated with robotic surgery ( p = 0.86 and p = 0.18). Mesorectal grading was comparable (incomplete mesorectum in 6% robotic proctectomy patients vs 11.8% open proctectomy patients, p = 0.327). All cases had negative distal resection margins.

LIMITATION

Retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement, robotic proctectomy is an effective approach and could be pursued when technically possible as an alternative to open proctectomy. See Video Abstract .

RESULTADOS COMPARATIVOS ENTRE LA PROCTECTOMA ROBTICA Y LA PROCTECTOMA ABIERTA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO CON ALTO RIESGO DE MRGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL POSITIVO

ANTECEDENTES:Persisten preocupaciones con respecto a la efectividad de la proctectomía robótica en comparación con la proctectomía abierta en casos de cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con un alto riesgo de margen de resección circunferencial positivo.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados en la subpoblación de portadores de cáncer luego de una proctectomía robótica versus una proctectomía abierta.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes.AJUSTE:Realizado en tres hospitales académicos (Mayo Clinic de Arizona, Florida y Rochester) a través de la plataforma Mayo Data Explorer.PACIENTES:Fueron seleccionados aquellos pacientes con alto riesgo de compromiso sobre el margen de resección circunferencial, según la definición de los Estudios Mercury I-II basada en la Imágen de Resonancia Magnética.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES Y SECUNDARIAS:La tasa de compromiso patológico sobre el margen de resección circunferencial (≤1 mm), la clasificación mesorrectal y la tasa del compromiso del margen distal.RESULTADOS:De 413 pacientes, 125 (30%) fueron sometidos a una proctectomía abierta y 288 (70%) a proctectomía robótica. La proctectomía abierta se asoció significativamente con una mayor proporción de tumores cT4 (39,3% frente a 24,8%, p = 0,021), las resecciones multiviscerales/concomitantes fueron de 40,8% frente a 18,4%, p < 0,001 y una adminstración menos frecuente de terapia neoadyuvante total (17,1). % vs 47,1%, p = 0,001).La proctectomía robótica se asoció con menos frecuencia con la presencia de una lesión sobre el margen de resección circunferencial patológico (7,3% frente a 17,6%, p = 0,002), incluso después del ajuste por estadio cT, de la terapia neoadyuvante y de resección multivisceral (OR 0,326, IC 95% 0,157-0,670, p = 0,002). El apareado de propensión por puntuación en 66 pacientes por grupo y el análisis multivariable relacionado, no mostraron ninguna reducción en la tasa de margen positivo circunferencial asociado con la cirugía robótica ( p = 0,86 y p = 0,18). La clasificación mesorrectal fue igualmente comparable (mesorrecto incompleto en el 6% de los pacientes con RP frente al 11,8% de los pacientes con OP, p = 0,327). Todos los casos tuvieron márgenes de resección distal negativos.LIMITACIÓN:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIÓN:En pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con alto riesgo de compromiso del margen de resección circunferencial, la proctectomía robótica es un enfoque eficaz y podría realizarse cuando sea técnicamente posible como alternativa a la proctectomía abierta. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Expedited Summary of the Clinical Evidence

Background

Rectal cancer is a disease in which cancer cells form in the rectum, which has the primary function of temporarily storing feces, controlling defecation, and maintaining continence. Surgery is the most common treatment for rectal cancer; surgical approaches include open, laparoscopic, and robotic assisted. We conducted an expedited summary of the clinical evidence for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness and safety.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to retrieve systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the risk of bias in the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2), and we assessed the risk of bias in the included RCT using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials, version 1. We reported the quality of the body of evidence as evaluated in the included systematic reviews according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria if it was evaluated.

Results

We included 14 studies in the clinical evidence review (12 systematic reviews and 1 RCT on robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and 1 systematic review on robotic-assisted vs. open rectal cancer surgery). Compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival; similar rates of conversion, blood transfusion, and readmission,· reduced blood loss; shorter length of stay; and improved quality of life. Compared with open rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival, reduced blood loss, and shorter length of stay.

Conclusions

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar or improved clinical outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery.

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes from a Tertiary Referral Center

Background: The popularity of robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but its superiority over the laparoscopic approach regarding safety, efficacy, and costs has not been well established. Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted comparing consecutively performed robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries for rectal cancer between 1 January 2016 and 31 September 2021. In total, 125 adult patients with sporadic rectal adenocarcinoma (distal extent ≤ 15 cm from the anal verge) underwent surgery where 66 were operated on robotically and 59 laparoscopically. Results: Severe postoperative complications occurred less frequently with robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic surgery, as indicated by Clavien-Dindo classification grades 3b-5 (13.6% vs. 30.5%, p = 0.029). Multiple logistic regression analyses after backward selection revealed that robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a lower rate of total (Clavien-Dindo grades 1-5) (OR = 0.355; 95% CI 0.156-0.808; p = 0.014) and severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grades 3b-5) (OR = 0.243; 95% CI 0.088-0.643; p = 0.005). Total inpatient costs (median EUR 17.663 [IQR EUR 10.151] vs. median EUR 14.089 [IQR EUR 12.629]; p = 0.018) and surgery costs (median EUR 10.156 [IQR EUR 3.551] vs. median EUR 7.468 [IQR EUR 4.074]; p < 0.0001) were higher for robotic-assisted surgery, resulting in reduced total inpatient profits (median EUR -3.196 [IQR EUR 9.101] vs. median EUR 232 [IQR EUR 6.304]; p = 0.004). Conclusions: In our study, robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer resulted in less severe and fewer total postoperative complications. Still, it was associated with higher surgery and inpatient costs. With increasing experience, the operative time may be reduced, and the postoperative recovery may be further accelerated, leading to reduced surgery and total inpatient costs.

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).

Brazilian society of surgical oncology: Guidelines for the surgical treatment of mid-low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer in North America, Western Europe, and Brazil, and represents an important public health problem. It is estimated that approximately 30% of all the CRC cases correspond to tumors located in the rectum, requiring complex multidisciplinary treatment. In an effort to provide surgeons who treat rectal cancer with the most current information based on the best evidence in the literature, the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (SBCO) has produced the present guidelines for rectal cancer treatment that is focused on the main topics related to daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The SBCO developed the present guidelines to provide recommendations on the main topics related to the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer based on current scientific evidence.

METHODS

Between May and June 2021, 11 experts in CRC surgery met to develop the guidelines for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer. A total of 22 relevant topics were disseminated among the participants. The methodological quality of a final list with 221 sources was evaluated, all the evidence was examined and revised, and the treatment guideline was formulated by the 11-expert committee. To reach a final consensus, all the topics were reviewed via a videoconference meeting that was attended by all 11 of the experts.

RESULTS

The prepared guidelines contained 22 topics considered to be highly relevant in the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer, covering subjects related to the tests required for staging, surgical technique-related aspects, recommended measures to reduce surgical complications, neoadjuvant strategies, and nonoperative treatments. In addition, a checklist was proposed to summarize the important information and offer an updated tool to assist surgeons who treat rectal cancer provide the best care to their patients.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines summarize concisely the recommendations based on the most current scientific evidence on the most relevant aspects of the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer and are a practical guide that can help surgeons who treat rectal cancer make the best therapeutic decision.