Robotic rectal resection: oncologic outcomes

Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and oncological results between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by multiple surgeon implementation: a propensity score-matched analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly common for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. However, the use and implementation of robotic surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery, focusing on pathological results and disease-free survival (DFS), in our cohort with initial robotic experience by multiple surgeon implementation. This retrospective study enrolled 571 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, who were treated with chemoradiotherapy and surgery between January 2015 and December 2021. Surgical outcomes after RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) were compared using a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. After matching, 200 patients (100 in each group) were included. The median operative time was significantly longer in the RAS group than in the LS group (p < 0.001). The conversion and morbidity rates were similar between the groups. A significantly higher rate of complete mesorectal excision (92% vs. 72%; p = 0.001) and number of lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.009) was observed in the RAS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.849 and p = 0.582, respectively). Two patients in the LS group developed local recurrence and 27 patients (15.4%) developed metastatic disease. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor stage III was the only factor associated with disease-free survival (HR, 9.34; (95% CI 1.13-77.1), p = 0.038). RAS and LS showed similar outcomes in terms of perioperative, anatomopathological, and disease-free survival, after multiple surgeon implementations.

Preliminary evaluation of two-row versus three-row circular staplers for colorectal anastomosis after rectal resection: a single-center retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

Circular staplers for colorectal anastomoses significantly ameliorated post-operative outcomes after rectal resection. The more recent three-row technology was conceived to improve anastomotic resistance and, thus, lower the incidence of anastomotic complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential advantages of three-row circular staplers (Three-CS) on anastomotic leakage (AL), stenosis (AS), and hemorrhage (AH) rates after rectal resection as compared to two-row circular staplers (Two-CS).

METHODS

All rectal resections for rectal cancer between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively included. Patients were classified according to the circular stapler employed in Two-CS and Three-CS cohorts. AL, AS, and AH rates were compared between the two populations. Additionally, the prognostic role of the type of circular stapler on AL onset was evaluated.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and seventy-five patients underwent a rectal resection with an end-to-end anastomosis during the study period: 197 constituted the Two-CS group and 178 the Three-CS cohort. AL rate was 6.7%, significantly higher in the Two-CS group (19-9.6%) as compared to the Three-CS cohort (6-3.4%) (p = 0.01). No difference was noted in terms of AL severity. Although not statistically significant, a lower incidence rate of AL was evidenced even in the subset of patients with low rectal cancers (4.5% vs 12.5% in the two-row cohort; p = 0.33). At the multivariate analysis, Two-CS was a negative prognostic factor for AL onset (OR: 2.63; p = 0.03). No difference was noted between the two groups in terms of AS and AH.

CONCLUSION

Three-row CSs significantly decrease the rate of AL after rectal resection. Further multicenter controlled trials are still needed to confirm the advantages of three-row CSs on anastomotic complications.