Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional robotic resection for patients with colorectal neoplasms

Different Methods of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) in Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Rectal and Low Sigmoid Colon Cancer: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal and low sigmoid colon cancer usually requires an additional abdominal incision to remove specimen and make anastomosis which possibly lead to postoperative pain, incisional infection, incisional hernia, and scarring.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and feasibility of different specimen extraction strategies in laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal and low sigmoid colon cancer.

SETTINGS

Two-center study.

PATIENTS

Patients with rectum and low sigmoid colon cancer who accepted laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal and low sigmoid colon cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A cohort of 632 patients was enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline data among three groups. Each group contains 23 cases. Controlled group: specimens were extracted through abdominal incision. Pull-out-method group: specimens were extracted by transanal pull-through coloanal anastomosis. Turn-out-method group: specimens were extracted by turn-rectum-out method. Clinical effects of the three extraction techniques were compared.

RESULTS

There is no significant difference in surgery time, lymph nodes, blood loss, or incidence of postoperative complications in 1 week, hospital time, and financial cost (p > 0.05, respectively). Tumor diameter and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores of controlled group were significantly higher than those of the pull-out-method group and turn-out-method group (p < 0.05, respectively). Pull-out-method group and turn-out-method group had shorter time to ambulation and first flatus than the control group (p < 0.05, respectively). No difference in prognosis was found among the three groups (p > 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Pull-out-method and turn-out-method are safe and available in laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal and low sigmoid colon cancer. Traditional abdominal incision strategy is suitable for larger specimens, whereas the pull-out-method strategy and turn-rectum-out strategy cause less trauma and have quicker recovery.

Is the NICE procedure the great equalizer for patients with high BMI undergoing resection for diverticulitis?

BACKGROUND

By 2030, projections indicate that nearly half of USS adults will be obese, with 29 states exceeding a 50% obesity rate. High Body Mass Index (BMI) presents particular challenges in treating diverticulitis, including worsened symptoms and increased risk of surgical complications. The Robotic Natural orifice Intracorporeal Anastomosis with Transrectal Extraction (NICE) procedure has been developed for colorectal surgeries to tackle these challenges. This study evaluates the efficacy of the Robotic NICE procedure in achieving comparable surgical outcomes in patients with both high and normal BMI.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study assessed the outcomes of robotic-assisted colectomy utilizing the NICE technique in patients with diverticulitis, dividing them into two groups based on BMI: high BMI (≥ 30 kg/m^2) and non-high BMI (< 30 kg/m^2).

RESULTS

Among the 194 patients analyzed, the incidence of complicated diverticulitis was significantly higher in the high BMI group (60.5%) compared to the non-high BMI group (39%; p = 0.003).The high BMI group had higher ASA scores, indicating sicker patients. The high BMI group also had a significantly higher rate of unplanned operations within 30 days (7.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.034). However, no significant differences were observed in the length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, or ICU admission rates between the two groups. Binary logistic regression highlighted the length of stay as a significant predictor of postoperative complications (Odds Ratio: 1.9686, 95% CI: 1.372-2.825, p < 0.001). Other factors, including age, operative time, and gender, did not significantly predict complications.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the Robotic NICE procedure can mitigate some of the challenges typically associated with conventional minimally invasive surgery in which abdominal wall incision is made, providing consistent outcomes regardless of BMI. Further research is needed to explore long-term benefits, aiming to establish this approach as a standard for managing diverticulitis in our patient population.

Comparative analysis of safety and effectiveness between natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional transabdominal specimen extraction in robot-assisted colorectal cancer resection through systematic review and meta-analysis

The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases to July 2024 that focus on patients who have undergone robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. Specifically, this review will compare NOSE with conventional TASE. Only studies published in English will be considered. Literature screening will adhere closely to predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will involve the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis of the included studies' data will be performed using Review Manager 5.4.1. In the final analysis, 9 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1571 patients were included. Out of these, 732 patients opted for NOSE, while 839 patients chose conventional TASE in robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who received TASE experienced enhancements in hospital stay duration, time until first gas passage, wound infection rates, and time until the first intake of a liquid diet. Nevertheless, there were no notable distinctions noted between the two methods regarding surgery duration, projected blood loss, intestinal blockage, or frequency of anastomotic leakage. In patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery, the safety and feasibility of NOSE are demonstrated. Compared to traditional TASE, it provides clear benefits including shorter hospital stays, earlier first flatus, quicker initiation of a liquid diet, and lower risk of wound infection.

Progress, challenges, and future perspectives of robot-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: a review

With the continuous advancements in precision medicine and the relentless pursuit of minimally invasive techniques, Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) has emerged. Compared to traditional surgical methods, NOSES better embodies the principles of minimally invasive surgery, making scar-free operations possible. In recent years, with the progress of science and technology, Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery has been widely applied in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Robotic surgical systems, with their clear surgical view and high operational precision, have shown significant advantages in the treatment process. To further improve the therapeutic outcomes for colorectal cancer patients, some scholars have attempted to combine robotic technology with NOSES. However, like traditional open surgery or laparoscopic surgery, the use of the robotic platform presents both advantages and limitations. Therefore, this study reviews the current research status, progress, and controversies regarding Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery for colorectal cancer, aiming to provide clinicians with more options in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer.

Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSE) compared to traditional robotic transabdominal wall specimen retrieval surgery (TWSR) for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) from inception to August 2023. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, the number of lymph nodes harvested, overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, the additional use of analgesics, the restoration of gastrointestinal function, blood loss, the mean operation time, and length of postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, a total of 717 patients from 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the TWSR group, the NOSE group had greater benefits in terms of overall postoperative complications [odds ratios (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.34 to 0.89; P = 0.01, I2 = 0%)], the number of lymph nodes harvested [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 1.18; 95% CI = 0.15 to 2.21; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%)], the rate of wound infection (OR 0.17; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.80; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%), the passed flatus time (WMD =  - 0.35 days; 95% CI =  - 0.60 to - 0.10; P = 0.007, I2 = 73%), the additional use of analgesics (OR 0.25; 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.40; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), the diet recovery time (WMD =  - 0.56; 95% CI =  - 1.00 to - 0.11; P = 0.01, I2 = 78%) and the postoperative VAS score (WMD =  - 1.23; 95% CI =  - 1.63 to - 0.83; P < 0.001, I2 = 65%). There were no significant differences in the blood loss (WMD =  - 5.78 ml; 95% CI =  - 17.57 to 6.00; P = 0.34, I2 = 90%), mean operation time (WMD = 14.10 min; 95% CI =  - 3.76 to 31.96; P = 0.12) (I2 = 93%), length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD =  - 0.47 day; 95% CI =  - 0.98 to 0.03; P = 0.07, I2 = 51%), incidences of postoperative ileus (OR 1.0; 95% CI = 0.22 to 4.46; P = 1.00, I2 = 0%), anastomotic leakage (OR 0.73; 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.60; P = 0.43, I2 = 0%), and intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.59; 95% CI = 0.47 to 5.40; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%), or 3-year overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.94; P = 0.81)] or disease-free survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.54 to 1.63; P = 0.82, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that the NOSE group had better postoperative outcomes than did the TWSR group and that NOSE was a safe and viable alternative to TWSR. More large-sample reviews and further randomized trials are warranted.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for early-stage rectal cancer: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis (in China)

BACKGROUND

Despite the global increase in the adoption of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (R-NOSES), its advantages over robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (R-TSES) for treating early-stage rectal cancer remain debated. There is scant nationwide, multicenter studies comparing the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES for this condition.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study was conducted nationally across multiple centers to compare the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES in early-stage rectal cancer.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort trial.

SETTING

Eight experienced surgeons from 8 high-volume Chinese colorectal cancer treatment centers.

PATIENTS

The study included 1086 patients who underwent R-NOSES or R-TSES from October 2015 to November 2023 at the 8 centers. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma; (2) robotic total mesorectal excision; (3) postoperative pathological staging of TisN0M0 or T1-2N0M0; (4) availability of complete surgical and postoperative follow-up data. Patients were matched 1:1 in the R-NOSES and R-TSES groups using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique.

RESULTS

After PSM, 318 matched pairs with well-balanced patient characteristics were identified. The operation time for the R-NOSES group was significantly longer than that for the R-TSES group [140 min (125-170 min) vs. 140 min (120-160 min), P = 0.032]. Conversely, the times to first flatus and initial oral intake in the R-NOSES group were significantly shorter than those in the R-TSES group [48 h (41-56 h) vs. 48 h (44-62 h), P = 0.049 and 77 h (72-94 h) vs. 82 h (72-96 h), P = 0.008], respectively. Additionally, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the R-NOSES group compared with the R-TSES group [7 day (7-9 day) vs. 8 day (7-9 day), P = 0.005]. The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.7% in the R-NOSES group vs. 11.9% in the R-TSES group, P = 0.617). However, the R-NOSES group had a lower incidence of wound complications compared to the R-TSES group (0.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.015). Regarding surgical stress response, the R-NOSES group showed superior outcomes. Additionally, patients in the R-NOSES group required fewer additional analgesics on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5 and reported lower pain scores compared to the R-TSES group. The body image scale (BIS) and cosmetic scale (CS) scores were also significantly higher in the R-NOSES group. Furthermore, the R-NOSES group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in functional dimensions such as physical, role, emotional, social, and cognitive functioning, and in symptoms like fatigue and pain, when compared to the R-TSES group.

LIMITATIONS

It is imperative to ensure the safe and standardized implementation of R-NOSES through the establishment of a uniform training protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

These results affirm that R-NOSES is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage rectal cancer when meticulously executed by skilled surgeons.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional robotic colorectal cancer resection: a propensity score matching study

Robotic resection is widely used to treat colorectal cancer. Although the novel natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) results in less trauma, its safety and effectiveness are relatively unknown. In the present study, we used propensity score matching to compare the effectiveness and safety of NOSES and robotic resection for treating colorectal cancer. Present retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent robotic colon and rectal cancer surgery between January 2016 and December 2019 at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The intraoperative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, and survival status of the conventional robotic colorectal cancer resection (CRR) (78 patients) and NOSES (89 patients) groups were compared. These results showed that no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of early postoperative complications, operation time, and the number of lymph nodes dissected. Compared with the CRR group, NOSES group had shorter postoperative exhaust time [3.06 (0.76) vs. 3.53 (0.92)], earlier eating time [4.12 (1.08) vs. 4.86 (1.73)], lesser intraoperative bleeding [51.23 (26.74) vs. 67.82 (43.44)], lesser degree of pain [80.8% vs. 55.1%], and shorter length of hospital stay [8.73 (2.02) vs. 9.50 (3.45)]. All these parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in the 3-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate between both groups (P > 0.05). Collectively, robotic NOSES is a safe and effective approach for treating rectal and sigmoid colon cancers, could decrease intraoperative bleeding and postoperative complications, and accelerate the speed of intestinal function recovery.

Comparison of short-term efficacy analysis of medium-rectal cancer surgery with robotic natural orifice specimen extraction and robotic transabdominal specimen extraction

BACKGROUND

With the development of minimally invasive technology, the trauma caused by surgery get smaller, At the same time, the specimen extraction surgery through the natural orifice is more favored by experts domestically and abroad, robotic surgery has further promoted the development of specimen extraction surgery through the natural orifice. The aim of current study is to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSES ) and transabdominal specimen extraction(TRSE ) in median rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

From January 2020 to January 2023, 87 patients who underwent the NOSES or TRSE at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were included in the study, 4 patients were excluded due to liver metastasis. Of these, 50 patients were in the TRSE and 33 patients in the NOSES. Short-term efficacy was compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

The NOSES group had less operation time (P < 0.001), faster recovery of gastrointestinal function (P < 0.001), shorter abdominal incisions (P < 0.001), lower pain scores(P < 0.001). lower Inflammatory indicators of the white blood cell count and C-reactive protein content at 1, 3, and 5 days after surgery (P < 0.001, P = 0.037). There were 9 complications in the NOSES group and 11 complications in the TRSE group(P = 0.583). However, there were no wound complications in the NOSES group. The number of postoperative hospital stays seems to be same in the two groups. And there was no significant difference in postoperative anus function (P = 0.591).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that NOSES and TRSE can achieve similar radical treatment effects, NOSES is a feasible and safe way to take specimens for rectal cancer surgery in accordance with the indication for NOSES.