Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: Case-Matched Study of Short-Term Outcomes

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence of superiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal resections remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques in high-risk patients undergoing resections for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library databases from inception until December 2024. Randomised and non-randomised studies reporting outcomes of robotic-assisted or laparoscopic resections in the following high-risk categories were included: obesity, male gender, the elderly, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and previous abdominal surgery. Comparative meta-analyses for all sufficiently reported outcomes were completed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools for non-randomised and randomised studies, respectively.

RESULTS

48 studies, including a total of 34,846 patients were eligible for inclusion and 32 studies were utilised in the comparative meta-analyses. Conversion to open rates were significantly lower for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity, male patients and patients with low rectal tumours (obese OR 0.41 [CI 0.32-0.51], p < 0.00001); male gender (OR 0.28 [CI 0.22-0.34], p < 0.00001); low tumours OR 0.10 [CI 0.02-0.58], p = 0.01). Length of stay was significantly reduced for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity (SMD 0.25 [CI - 0.41 to - 0.09], p = 0.002). Operative time was significantly longer in all subgroups (obesity SMD 0.57 [CI 0.31-0.83], p < 0.0001; male gender SMD 0.77 [CI 0.17-1.37], p = 0.01; elderly SMD 0.50 [CI 0.18-0.83], p = 0.002; low rectal tumours SMD 0.48 [CI 0.12-0.84], p = 0.008; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy SMD 0.72 [CI 0.34-1.09], p = 0.0002; previous surgery SMD 1.55 [CI 0.05-3.06], p = 0.04). When calculable, blood loss, length of stay, complication rate and lymph node yield were comparable in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides further evidence of non-inferiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer and demonstrates conversion rates are superior in specific, technically challenging operations.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: Perioperative and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of a Single-Center Analysis Compared with Laparoscopic and Open Approach

Background/Objectives: Robotic-assisted surgery is an attractive and promising option with unique advantages in rectal cancer surgery, but the optimal surgical approach is still debatable. Therefore, we aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the robotic-assisted approach with the laparoscopic-assisted and open approaches. Methods: A single referral center in Israel retrospectively reviewed all patients that underwent an elective rectal resection for primary non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2010 and 2020. The cohort was separated into three groups according to the surgical approach: robotic, laparoscopic, or open. Results: The cohort included 526 patients with a median age of 64 years (range 31-89), of whom 103 patients were in the robotic group, 144 in the open group, and 279 patients in the laparoscopic group. The robotic group had significantly more lower rectal tumors (24.3% versus 12.7% and 6%, respectively, p < 0.001), more locally advanced tumors (65.6% versus 51.2% and 50.2%, respectively, p = 0.004), and higher rates of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (70.9% versus 54.2% and 39.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). Conversion to an open laparotomy was more common in the laparoscopy group (23.1% versus 6.8%, respectively, p = 0.001). The open approach had higher rates of intraoperative complications (23.2% compared with 10.7% and 13.5% in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively, p = 0.011), longer hospital stays (10 days compared with 7 and 8 days, respectively, p < 0.001), and higher rates of postoperative complications (76% compared with 68.9% and 59.1%, respectively, p = 0.002). The groups were similar in the number of harvested lymph nodes (14) and the incidence of positive resection margins (2.1%). The 5-year overall survival in the robotic group was 92.3% compared with 90.5% and 88.3% in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = 0.12). The 5-year disease-free survival in the robotic group was 68% compared with 71% and 63%, respectively (p = 0.2). Conclusions: The robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches had similar histopathological outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes. The open approach was associated with higher rates of perioperative morbidity. These findings suggest that the robotic approach is safe and effective in rectal cancer surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Association of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Total Mesorectal Excision and Margin Status for Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Despite being a key metric with a significant correlation with the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) has not yet been identified. The aim of this study was to assess the association of the surgical approach on the quality of TME and surgical margins and to characterize the surgical and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open TME for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with primary, nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent either lower anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection via robotic (Rob), laparoscopic (Lap), or open approaches were selected from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database (2007-2017). Quasi-Poisson regression analysis with backward selection was used to investigate the relationship between the surgical approach and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Among the 664 patients included in the study, the distribution of surgical approaches was as follows: 351 (52.9%) underwent TME via the open approach, 159 (23.9%) via the robotic approach, and 154 (23.2%) via the laparoscopic approach. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics among the three cohorts. The laparoscopic cohort had fewer patients with low rectal cancer (<6 cm from the anal verge) than the robotic and open cohorts (Lap 28.6% versus Rob 59.1% versus Open 45.6%, P = 0.015). Patients who underwent Rob and Lap TME had lower intraoperative blood loss compared with the Open approach (Rob 200 mL [Q1, Q3: 100.0, 300.0] versus Lap 150 mL [Q1, Q3: 75.0, 250.0] versus Open 300 mL [Q1, Q3: 150.0, 600.0], P < 0.001). There was no difference in the operative time (Rob 243 min [Q1, Q3: 203.8, 300.2] versus Lap 241 min [Q1, Q3: 186, 336] versus Open 226 min [Q1, Q3: 178, 315.8], P = 0.309) between the three approaches. Postoperative length of stay was shorter with robotic and laparoscopic approach compared to open approach (Rob 5.0 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8.2] versus Lap 5 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8] versus Open 7.0 d [Q1, Q3: 5, 9], P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches (79.2%, 64.9%, and 64.7%, respectively; P = 0.46). The margin positivity rate, a composite of circumferential margin and distal margin, was higher with the robotic and open approaches than with the laparoscopic approach (Rob 8.2% versus Open 6.6% versus Lap 1.9%, P = 0.17), Rob versus Lap (odds ratio 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.05, 0.83) and Rob versus Open (odds ratio 0.5; 95% confidence interval 0.22, 1.12). There was no difference in long-term survival, including overall survival and recurrence-free survival, between patients who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open TME (Figure 1).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing surgery with curative intent for rectal cancer, we did not observe a difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, or open approaches. Robotic and open TME compared to laparoscopic TME were associated with higher margin positivity rates in our study. This was likely due to the higher percentage of low rectal cancers in the robotic and open cohorts. We also reported no significant differences in overall survival and recurrence-free survival between the aforementioned surgical techniques.

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.

Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant literature from PubMed, NCBI, Medline, and Springer databases, spanning the database inception until August 2023. The focus of this systematic review was on controlled studies that compared the treatment outcomes of robot-assisted (Rob) and conventional laparoscopy (Lap) in the context of mid and low rectal cancer. Data extraction and literature review were meticulously conducted by two independent researchers (HMW and RKG). The synthesized data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, adhering to established methodological standards in systematic reviews. The primary outcomes encompass perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes include long-term outcomes.

RESULT

A total of 11 studies involving 2239 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were included (3 RCTs and 8 NRCTs); the Rob group consisted of 1111 cases, while the Lap group included 1128 cases. The Rob group exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (MD =  -40.01, 95% CI: -57.61 to -22.42, P < 0.00001), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.82, P = 0.02), a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.18, P = 0.001), and a lower CRM positive rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95, P = 0.04). Additionally, the Rob group had lower postoperative morbidity rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) and a lower occurrence rate of complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.90, P = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis revealed a lower anastomotic leakage rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the analysis of operation time (P = 0.42), occurrence rates of protective stoma (P = 0.81), PRM (P = 0.92), and DRM (P = 0.23), time to flatus (P = 0.18), time to liquid diet (P = 0.65), total hospital stay (P = 0.35), 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.67), and 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment for mid and low rectal cancer yields favorable outcomes, demonstrating both efficacy and safety. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, patients experience reduced intraoperative bleeding and a lower incidence of complications. Notably, the method achieves comparable short-term and long-term treatment results to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery, thus justifying its consideration for widespread clinical application.

Robotic Rectal Resection for Rectal Cancer in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Rectal cancer is estimated to increase due to an expanding aging population, thus affecting elderly patients more frequently. The optimal surgical treatment for this type of patient remains controversial because they are often excluded from or underrepresented in trials. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the safety of robotic surgery in elderly patients (>70 years old) undergoing curative treatment for rectal cancer. Studies comparing elderly (E) and young (Y) patients submitted to robotic rectal resection were searched on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Data regarding surgical oncologic quality, post-operative, and survival outcomes were extracted. Overall, 322 patients underwent robotic resection (81 in the E group and 241 in the Y group) for rectal cancer. No differences between the two groups were found regarding distal margins and the number of nodes yielded (12.70 in the E group vs. 14.02 in the Y group, p = 0.16). No differences were found in conversion rate, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and length of stay. Survival outcomes were only reported in one study. The results of this study suggest that elderly patients can be submitted to robotic resection for rectal cancer with the same oncologic surgical quality offered to young patients, without increasing postoperative mortality and morbidity.

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

BACKGROUND

Most studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery, show little difference in clinical outcomes to justify the expense. We systematically reviewed and pooled evidence from studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection.

METHOD

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), and Cochrane databases were searched for studies between 1996 and 2021 comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgeries involving total mesorectal excision. Outcome measures included operative times, conversions to open, complications, recurrence and survival rates.

RESULTS

Fifty eligible studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections; three were randomized trials. Pooled results showed significantly longer operating times for robotic surgery but lower conversion and complications rates, shorter lengths of stay in hospital, better rates of complete mesorectal resection and better three-year overall survival. However, the low number of randomized studies makes most data subject to bias.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence supports the safety and ongoing use of robotic rectal cancer surgery, while further high-quality evidence is sought to justify the expense.

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 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.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Simple Summary

Surgery remains a mainstay of combined modality treatment at patients with rectal cancer; however, there is a growing interest in using laparoscopic techniques (LG); including robotic-assisted techniques (RG). Therefore, we have prepared a meta-analysis of the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. The results indicate a number of advantages of RG in terms of both safety and efficacy. Operative time in the RG group was shorter and associated with a statistically significantly lower conversion of the procedure to open surgery. RG technique provided a shorter duration of hospital stay and lowered urinary risk retention. No differences were found between these techniques regarding TNM stage; N stage or lymph nodes harvested. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% in RG vs. 98.8% for LG.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to 10 November 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was 2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD = −0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs. LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs. 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Oncological Outcomes

The treatment of rectal cancer is complex and involves specialized multidisciplinary care, although the tenet is still rooted in a high-quality total mesorectal excision. The robotic platform is one of many tools in the arsenal to assist dissection in the low pelvis. This article is a comprehensive review of the oncological outcome comparing robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, with a particular focus on total mesorectal excision. There is no statistical difference in total mesorectal grade, circumferential margin, distal margin, and lymph node harvest. Survival data are less mature, but there is also no difference in disease-free or overall survival between the two techniques. Although additional randomized trials are still needed to validate these findings, both techniques are currently acceptable in the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, and surgeon preference is paramount to safe and optimal resection.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy as these remains unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively recruited eligible patients with rectal cancer undergoing robotic or laparoscopic surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We compared the surgical outcomes between patients undergoing either robotic surgery or laparoscopic surgery was based on the propensity-score matching analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were recruited, including 76 who underwent robotic surgery and 95 who underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in clinical and pathological characteristics between the groups after propensity-score matching (56 matched pairs). Longer operation times (324.964 ± 83.435 vs. 246.232 ± 111.324 min, p < 0.001) and more blood loss (187.679 ± 176.615 vs. 98.214 ± 107.011, p < 0.001) were observed in the robotic group. The major complication rates were similar between the treatment groups after propensity matching (p = 0.086). There were no significant differences in disease-free survival rates (p = 0.205) and overall survival rates (p = 0.837) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is associated with similar technical safety and oncologic efficacy compared to laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; it is an acceptable option for patients requiring minimally invasive surgery. Nevertheless, the longer operation times and greater blood loss seen in the present study are a stark reminder that the convenience and surgical precision, on which the marketing of robotic surgery is rooted, are yet to be proven and require further investigation.

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

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

Postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer: An updated meta-analysis of recently published studies

BACKGROUND

This is an updated meta-analysis comparing the postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Cochrane central, MEDLNE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), Google Scholar, Web of Science and http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies (published after the year 2015), comparing robotic versus LS for the treatment of rectal cancer. The postoperative outcomes were considered as the endpoints in this analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to carry out the statistical analysis. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the results following data analysis.

RESULTS

A total number of 22,744 participants were included in this study whereby 9178 participants were assigned to the robotic surgery and 13,566 participants were assigned to the LS group. The time period of patients' enrollment varied from years 2007 to 2017. Our results showed that overall complications (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.17; P = .45), wound complications (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64-1.04; P = .09), anastomotic leak (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.88-1.42; P = .37), anastomotic bleeding (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.29-2.64; P = .82), stoma-related complications (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.24-3.21; P = .85), intra-abdominal abscess (RR: 0.53. 95% CI: 0.22-1.31; P = .17), urinary tract infection (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.53-1.66; P = .83), enterocolitis (RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.38-4.71; P = .64), reoperation (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.46-1.54; P = .58), and mortality (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.34-1.62; P = .46) were not significantly different between robotic-assisted versus LS for rectal cancer. Postoperative ileus (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.81-1.81; P = .34), readmission (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.75-1.83; P = .48), and urinary retention (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.21-1.23; P = .14) were also similarly manifested.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated meta-analysis, both robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were equally effective for the treatment of rectal cancer. Similar postoperative complications were observed. However, our analysis was restricted only to postoperative outcomes, parameters such as duration of surgery were not taken into consideration.

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

AIMS

This study analyzed the oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

METHODS

We enrolled 109 consecutive patients with stage II-III rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted TME after neoadjuvant CCRT at one hospital between July 2013 and June 2018.

RESULTS

All 109 patients underwent preoperative CCRT. Of them, 37 (33.9%) achieved a pathologic complete response, and 29 (26.6%) experienced relapse, with local recurrence in 9 (8.3%) and distant metastasis in 20 (18.3%). R0 resection was performed in 104 (95.7%) patients; however, 7 (6.7%) of them developed local recurrence and 17 (16.3%) developed distant metastasis. Over a median follow-up of 42 months, the 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 73.4% and 87.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted TME after neoadjuvant CCRT is safe and effective for treating patients with stage II-III rectal cancer in one institution with acceptable short-term oncological outcomes. It may be a therapeutic alternative to salvage surgery for T4 tumors invading adjacent organs, such as the bladder, prostate, and uterus.

Feasibility of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although surgical resection is the main treatment for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical protocol for elderly patients with rectal cancer remains controversial. This study evaluated the feasibility of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 156 patients aged 28-93 years diagnosed with Stage I-III rectal cancer, who underwent robot-assisted surgery between May 2013 and December 2018 at a single institution.

RESULTS

In total, 156 patients with rectal cancer, including 126 non-elderly (aged < 70 years) and 30 elderly (aged ≥70 years) patients, who underwent robot-assisted surgery were recruited. Between the patient groups, the post-operative length of hospital stay did not differ statistically significantly (P = 0.084). The incidence of overall post-operative complications was statistically significantly lower in the elderly group (P = 0.002). The disease-free and overall survival did not differ statistically significantly between the two groups (P = 0.719 and 0.390, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer was well tolerated by elderly patients, with similar results to the non-elderly patients. Oncological outcomes and survival did not depend on patient age, suggesting that robot-assisted surgery is a feasible surgical modality for treating operable rectal cancer and leads to age-independent post-operative outcomes in elderly patients.

Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies

Background

RCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model.

Results

Fifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) –1.11 (95 per cent c.i. –1.86 to –0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD –0.28 (–1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively).

Conclusion

Results of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives

Despite the technical limitations of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has short-term advantages over open surgery, but the pathological outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials are still in controversy. Minimally invasive robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) has recently been gaining popularity as robotic surgical systems potentially provide greater benefits than LTME. Compared to LTME, RTME is associated with lower conversion rates and similar or better genitourinary functions, but its long-term oncological outcomes have not been established. Although the operating time of RTME is longer than that of LTME, RTME has a shorter learning curve, is more convenient for surgeons, and is better for sphincter-preserving operations than LTME. The robotic surgical system is a good technical tool for minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer, especially in male patients with narrow deep pelvises. Robotic systems and robotic surgical techniques are still improving, and the contribution of RTME to the treatment of rectal cancer will continue to increase in the future.

Oncological Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery With High Dissection and Selective Ligation Technique for Sigmoid Colon and Rectal Cancer

Background: Curative resection of sigmoid colon and rectal cancer includes "high tie" of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). However, IMA ligation compromises blood flow to the anastomosis, which may increase the complication rate. We present preliminary experiences of operative and oncologic outcomes of patients with rectal or sigmoid colon cancer who underwent robotic surgery employing the high dissection and selective ligation technique. Methods: Over May 2013 to April 2017, 113 stage I-III rectal or sigmoid colon cancer patients underwent robotic surgery with the single-docking technique at one institution. We performed D3 lymph node dissection and low-tie ligation of the IMA (i.e., high dissection and selective ligation technique). Clinicopathological features, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Sphincter preservation rate was 96.3% in rectal cancer patients. Median number of harvested lymph nodes was 12. Apical nodes were pathologically harvested in 84 (82.4%) patients. R0 resection was performed in 108 (95.6%) patients. Overall complication rate was 17.7%; but most complications were mild and the patients recovered uneventfully. Estimated 5-year OS was 86.1% and 3-year DFS was 79.6% after median follow-up periods of 49.1 months (range, 5.3-85.3). Conclusions: High dissection of the IMA and selective ligation of the major feeding vessel to the sigmoid colon or rectum can be safely performed using da Vinci Surgical System,yielding favorable clinical, and oncologic outcomes in rectal or sigmoid colon cancer treatment.

Comparison of clinical efficacy between robotic-laparoscopic excision and traditional laparoscopy for rectal cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery and open surgery are the most commonly consumed surgical techniques in daily living. Considering that in recent years, the situation of choosing laparoscopic surgery and robot-assisted surgery to treat rectal cancer in China is prosperous. Meanwhile, researches lacked in the comparison part between the 2, so we will systematically compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Clinical research literature published before January 2020 in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Science Network, Wan Fang database, Chinese national knowledge infrastructure, and Chinese biomedicine that evaluate the correlation of rectal cancer with Leonardo's robot and traditional laparoscopy, from inception to July 2019. Weighted mean difference and odds ratio were used to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted resection versus conventional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, and the main indicators are operation time, complication rate, conversion rate, blood loss, and length of stay.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

This study will systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, thus providing evidence to the clinical application. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval and participant consent are required, since this study data is based on published literature. The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020172161.

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Systemic review and network meta-analysis comparing minimal surgical techniques for rectal cancer: quality of total mesorectum excision, pathological, surgical, and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimal invasive surgery has revolutionized recovery in rectal cancer patients. However, there has been debate on its effect on quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and oncological outcomes. This network meta-analysis compares laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and transanal TMEs. This study shows that All three surgical techniques are comparable across TME quality and oncological outcomes. Ultimately, good outcomes are based on each individual surgeon choosing an approach based on their expertise.

Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

TME has revolutionized the surgical management of rectal cancer, and since the introduction of robotic TME (RTME), many reports have shown the feasibility and the safety of this approach. However, concerns persist regarding the advantages of robotic in surgery for the completeness of TME. The aim of this review is to compare robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer, focusing on the completeness of TME.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases for all available studies comparing RTME versus conventional laparoscopic LTME with declared grade of mesorectum excision. Data regarding sample size, clinical and demographic characteristics, number of complete, nearly complete, and incomplete TME were extracted. Primary outcome was the number of complete TME in robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Secondary outcomes were the numbers of nearly complete and incomplete TME in robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were included in the final analysis. Complete TME was reported by all authors, involving 1510 procedures, showing a significant difference in favor of robotic surgery (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.08-3.10, p = 0.03). Nearly complete and incomplete TME showed no significant difference between the procedures. Meta-regression analysis showed that none of patients' and tumors' characteristics significantly impacted on complete TME.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underline that the robotic approach to rectal resection is the better way to obtain a complete TME. However, it is mandatory that randomized clinical trials should be performed to assess definitively if robotic minimally invasive surgery is better than a laparoscopic resection.

TME for rectal cancer: consecutive 70 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique-cumulative experience in a single centre

From January 2011 to December 2015, 70 consecutive patients underwent either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic surgery (RS) total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy. Data were prospectically recorded in a dedicated local database including ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results. We enrolled 70 consecutive patients, 35 treated with LS (18 M, 17 F), 35 treated with RS (23 M, 12 F). Median total operative time was 225 min in LS group (IQR 194-255) and 252.5 min for RS group (IQR 214-300). Median first flatus time was 2 days for LS group (IQR 1-3) and 1 day for RS group (IQR 1-2). Stool discharge time (median) was 4 days for LS group (IQR 2-5) and 2 days for RS group (IQR 1-3). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR 7-10) and 7 days in RS group (IQR 5-8). It was not found any statistically significant difference between the two groups when we analyzed the number nodes harvested the postoperative complications. The 30 day mortality was 0% in both two groups. The conversion rate for LS group was 23% (8/35 pts) and that for RS group was 0% (0/35). The RS may overcome technical limitations of LS. In our experience, it is a feasible and safe technique, it achieves better clinical outcomes due to the lower conversion rate compared to LS, although with higher costs.

Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the intestinal function recovery time and other short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) for rectal cancer. This is a retrospective study using a prospectively collected database. Patients’ records were obtained from Gansu Provincial Hospital between July 2015 and October 2017. Eighty patients underwent R-TME, and 116 with the same histopathological stage of the tumor underwent an L-TME. Both operations were performed by the same surgeon, comparing intra- and postoperative outcomes intergroups. The time to the first passage of flatus ( P < 0.001), the time to the first postoperative oral fluid intake ( P < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay ( P < 0.01) of the R-TME group were about three days faster than those in the L-TME group. The rate of conversion to open laparotomy ( P = 0.038) and postoperative urinary retention ( P = 0.016) were significantly lower in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group. Intraoperative blood loss of the R-TME group was more than that of the L-TME group ( P < 0.01).The operation time, number of lymph nodes harvested, and rate of positive circumferential resection margin were similar intergroup. The total cost of the R-TME group was higher than that of the L-TME group, but with a lack of statistical significance (85,623.91 ± 13,310.50 vs 67,356.79 ± 17,107.68 CNY, P = 0.084). The R-TME is safe and effective and has better postoperative short-term outcomes and faster intestinal function recovery time, contrasting with the L-TME. The large, multicenter, prospective studies were needed to validate the advantages of robotic surgery system used in rectal cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence available on the safety as well as effectiveness of robotic resection as compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer was collected. Eligible trials that analyzed probabilistic hazard ratios (HR) for endpoints of interest (including perioperative morbidity) and postoperative complications were included in our review.

RESULTS

A total of six studies were included based on the present inclusion criteria. The pooled data showed that R-TME appeared to have association with remarkable reduction in the postoperative morbidity rate as compared to L-TME. Moreover, R-TME was also linked to lower conversion, decreased lymph node number, and longer operation time compared with L-TME. However, there was no difference in hospital stay, positive range of circumferential resection and blood loss between the two study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic rectal cancer surgery provides favorable outcomes and is considered as a safe surgical technique in terms of postoperative oncological safety. Like laparoscopic TME surgery, robotic surgery may be a valid alternative and complementary approach with beneficial effects on minimally-invasive surgery.

Systematic review analysis of robotic and transanal approaches in TME surgery- A systematic review of the current literature in regard to challenges in rectal cancer surgery

Several patients' and pathological characteristics in rectal surgery can significantly complicate surgical loco regional tumor clearance. The main factors are obesity, short tumor distance from anal verge, bulky tumors, and narrow pelvis, which have been shown to be associated to poor surgical results in open and laparoscopic approaches. Minimally invasive surgery has the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity with equivalent short- and long-term oncological outcomes compared to conventional open approach. Achilles' heel of laparoscopic approaches is conversion to open surgery. High risk for conversion is evident for patients with bulky and low tumors as well as male gender and narrow pelvis. Hence, patient's characteristics represent challenges in rectal cancer surgery especially in minimally invasive approaches. The available surgical techniques increased remarkably with recently developed and implemented improvements of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. The controversial discussions about sense and purpose of these novel approaches are still ongoing in the literature. Herein, we evaluate, if latest technical advances like transanal approach or robotic assisted surgery have the potential to overcome known challenges and pitfalls in rectal cancer surgery in demanding surgical cases and highlight the role of current minimally invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery.

Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial

AIM

To compare outcomes in patients undergoing rectal resection by robotic total meso-rectal excision (RTME) vs laparoscopic total meso-rectal excision (LTME).

METHODS

Standard medical electronic databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus were searched to find relevant articles. The data retrieved from all types of included published comparative trials in patients undergoing RTME vs LTME was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes were evaluated to assess the effectiveness of both techniques of TME. The summated outcome of continuous variables was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and dichotomous data was presented in odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

One RCT (ROLARR trial) and 27 other comparative studies reporting the non-oncological and oncological outcomes following RTME vs LTME were included in this review. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the RTME was associated with longer operation time (SMD, 0.46; 95%CI: 0.25, 0.67; z = 4.33; P = 0.0001), early passage of first flatus (P = 0.002), lower risk of conversion (P = 0.00001) and shorter hospitalization (P = 0.01). The statistical equivalence was seen between RTME and LTME for non-oncological variables like blood loss, morbidity, mortality and re-operation risk. The oncological variables such as recurrence (P = 0.96), number of harvested nodes (P = 0.49) and positive circumferential resection margin risk (P = 0.53) were also comparable in both groups. The length of distal resection margins was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RTME is feasible and oncologically safe but failed to demonstrate any superiority over LTME for many surgical outcomes except early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion and shorter hospitalization.

Meta-analysis of Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for relevant papers published between 2010 and December 2017 by using specific search terms. We analyzed outcomes over short- and long-term periods.

RESULTS

We identified 23 papers reporting results that compared RAS for rectal cancer with LAS. Our meta-analysis included 4,348 patients with rectal cancer; 2,068 had undergone RAS, and 2,280 had undergone LAS. In the short- and long-term period, 27 and 7 outcome variables were examined, respectively. RAS for rectal cancer was significantly associated with a greater operative time and a lower conversion rate to open surgery in the short-term, and results in almost similar outcomes in the long-term, compared to LAS.

CONCLUSION

RAS may be an acceptable surgical treatment option compared to LAS for rectal cancer.

Meta-analysis of Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for relevant papers published between 2010 and December 2017 by using specific search terms. We analyzed outcomes over short- and long-term periods.

RESULTS

We identified 23 papers reporting results that compared RAS for rectal cancer with LAS. Our meta-analysis included 4,348 patients with rectal cancer; 2,068 had undergone RAS, and 2,280 had undergone LAS. In the short- and long-term period, 27 and 7 outcome variables were examined, respectively. RAS for rectal cancer was significantly associated with a greater operative time and a lower conversion rate to open surgery in the short-term, and results in almost similar outcomes in the long-term, compared to LAS.

CONCLUSION

RAS may be an acceptable surgical treatment option compared to LAS for rectal cancer.

Operative time and length of stay is similar between robotic assisted and laparoscopic colon and rectal resections

Robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly being utilized for colorectal surgery. Data are scarce and contradictory when outcomes are compared between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. All patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery were compared from 2011 to 2016. Outcomes between the two groups were statistically analyzed. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. 185 patients underwent laparoscopic resection and 70 underwent robotic resection. Demographics, ASA score, and BMI were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in median length of stay between laparoscopic and robotic colon (both 4 days; p = 0.5) and rectal (6 vs 4.5 days; p = 0.2) resections. Median operative times were also similar between the two approaches for colon (150.5 vs 169.5 min, p = 0.2) and rectal (197.0 vs 231.5 min, p = 0.9) resections. There was also no difference in operative time between the two approaches for right (median = 137 vs 130.5 min; p = 0.9) and left (median = 162.0 vs 170.5 min; p = 0.6) colectomies. Robotic surgery results in similar operative times and length of stay as laparoscopic surgery for patients undergoing colon and rectal resections.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision with the single-docking technique for patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The robotic system has advantages of high-definition three-dimensional vision and articular instruments with high dexterity, allowing more precise dissection in the deep and narrow pelvic cavity.

METHODS

We enrolled 95 patients with stage I-III rectal cancer (adenocarcinoma) who underwent totally robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) with single-docking technique at a single institution between September 2013 and December 2016.

RESULTS

Of the 95 patients, 48 (50.5%) and 30 (31.6%) patients had lower and middle rectal cancers, respectively. Of the 75 (78.9%) patients undergoing preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), 27 (28.4%) exhibited pathologic complete response (pCR). Only four (4.2%) patients underwent abdominoperineal resection and the sphincter preservation rate was 95.8%. R0 resection was performed in 92 (96.8%) patients. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) and distal resection margin (DRM) were positive in 2 (2.1%) and 1 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The anastomotic leakage rate was 5.4% (5/95 patients). The overall complication rate was 17.9% (17/95 patients); most of them were mild. No 30-day hospital mortality occurred, and no patients required conversion to open surgery. In 92 patients undergoing R0 resection, 2-year overall survival was 94% and 2-year disease-free survival was 83%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrated that totally robotic-assisted TME with the single-docking technique is safe and feasible for patients with rectal cancer, with or without preoperative CCRT. Moreover, favorable pCR rate, R0 resection rate, CRM, DRM, sphincter preservation rate, and short-term oncological outcomes can be achieved by combining this approach with appropriate preoperative CCRT.

The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to July 2016 to identify case-controlled studies that compared robotic TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME) for rectal cancer. GRADE was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 17 case-control studies (3601 participants: 1726 underwent RTME and 1875 LTME for rectal cancer) that compared RTME with LTME for rectal cancer. We found no statistically significant differences between techniques for local recurrence [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, P = .216] and overall survival at 3 years (OR = 0.71, P = 1.140), complications (OR = 1.02, P = .883), positive circumferential resection margin (PCRM) (OR = 0.80, P = .256), the first passing flatus [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.11, P = .130], reoperation (OR = 0.66, P = .080), estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = -12.45, P = .500), and length of stay in hospital (LOS) (WMD = -0.69, P = .089). Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.35, P < .001), urinary retention (OR = 0.41, P = .025), and longer operative time (WMD = 57.43, P < .001). The overall quality of evidence was poor in all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RTME in patients with rectal cancer was associated with a lower rate of conversion and less incidence of urinary retention. Generally, operative time in RTME was significantly longer than in LTME. The long-term oncological and function outcomes of RTME seem to be equivalent with LTME. Therefore, analysis of current studies to date did not indicate a major benefit of RTME over LTME.

Recent surgical advances in colorectal cancer excision: toward optimal outcomes

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer affecting both males and females in the western world. Despite all the developments in the current treatment of colorectal cancer, it is still continuing to be an important factor of patient morbidity and mortality worldwide. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer. Over the last decade, there have been major changes and developments in the surgical treatment. Understanding the importance of the anatomy, technological advances in minimally invasive surgery and effects of chemoradiotherapy have changed the approaches to colorectal cancer treatment. Today, novel treatment strategies must be targeted not only minimally invasive approaches, but also aiming to increase patients’ quality of life without compromising the oncological principles.

Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

Over the past few decades, robotic surgery has developed from a futuristic dream to a real, widely used technology. Today, robotic platforms are used for a range of procedures and have added a new facet to the development and implementation of minimally invasive surgeries. The potential advantages are enormous, but the current progress is impeded by high costs and limited technology. However, recent advances in haptic feedback systems and single-port surgical techniques demonstrate a clear role for robotics and are likely to improve surgical outcomes. Although robotic surgeries have become the gold standard for a number of procedures, the research in colorectal surgery is not definitive and more work needs to be done to prove its safety and efficacy to both surgeons and patients.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive management of colorectal cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) that compared the clinicopathological outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) with those of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS). Inferences on the feasibility and the relative safety and efficacy have been drawn.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies was performed on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Inter-group differences in the standardized mean differences and relative risk were assessed. Operation times, conversion rates to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), early postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Oncologic outcomes assessed were number of lymph nodes harvested and lengths of proximal and distal resection margins.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (2 RCTs and 22 NRCTs [5 prospective plus 17 retrospective]) with a total of 3318 patients were included. Of these, 1466 (44.18 %) patients underwent RACS and 1852 (55.82 %) underwent LACS. Conversion rates, EBL and LHS were significantly lower, while the operation times and total costs were similar between RACS and LACS. Complication rates and oncological accuracy of resection showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, RACS appears to be a promising surgical approach with its safety and efficacy comparable to that of LACS in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are required to evaluate the long-term cost-efficiency as well as the functional and oncologic outcomes of RACS.

Robotic surgery with high dissection and low ligation technique for consecutive patients with rectal cancer following preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

We present the preliminary experiences with and short-term outcomes of 50 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) followed by robotic surgery by using the high dissection and low ligation technique.

METHODS

Between October 2013 and August 2015, 50 patients with rectal cancer underwent robotic surgery after preoperative CCRT at a single institution. We performed D3 lymph node dissection and low tie ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA); this technique is referred to as the high dissection and low ligation technique. Clinicopathological features, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

FOLFOX regimen was used for preoperative CCRT in 26 (52 %) patients. Long-course radiotherapy was concurrently administered. A pathological complete response (pCR) was obtained in 14 (28 %) patients. Of the 50 patients, 23 (46 %) patients received intersphincteric resection (ISR) with coloanal anastomosis, 25 (50 %) patients received lower anterior resection (LAR), and 2 (4 %) patients received abdominoperineal resection (APR). Apical nodes were pathologically harvested in 47 (94 %) patients, and the median number of harvested apical lymph nodes was 2 (range, 0-10). The overall complication rate was 24 % (10 patients with 12 episodes), and most complications were mild.

CONCLUSION

Roboic rectal surgery combined with appropriate preoperative CCRT helps in achieving a favorable pCR, circumferential resection margin, and sphincter preservation. Moreover, high dissection and low ligation of the IMA can be safely performed using the da Vinci(®) Surgical System safely which yield favorable short-term clinical outcomes.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Update in 2015

During the last decade, robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly gained acceptance among colorectal surgeons worldwide, with well-established safety and feasibility. The lower conversion rate and better surgical specimen quality of robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery potentially improves survival. Earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision is another favorable outcome. Long-term survival data are sparse with no evidence that robotic surgery offers major benefits in oncological outcomes. Although initial reports are promising, more rigorous scientific evaluation in multicenter, randomized clinical trials should be performed to definitely determine the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery.