A comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision: trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis

Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved using open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or transanal techniques (TaTME). However, the optimal approach for access remains controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess operative and oncological outcomes of all four surgical techniques.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched systematically from inception to September 2020, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two TME surgical techniques. A network meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects framework and mixed treatment comparison was performed. Primary outcomes were the rate of clear circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as > 1 mm from the closest tumour to the cut edge of the tissue, and completeness of mesorectal excision. Secondary outcomes included radial and distal resection margin distance, postoperative complications, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the relative effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome. The higher the SUCRA value, the higher the likelihood that the intervention is in the top rank or one of the top ranks.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 6151 patients were included. Compared with OpTME, there was no difference in the rates of clear CRM: LapTME RR = 0.99 (95% (Credible interval) CrI 0.97-1.0); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1). There was no difference in the rates of complete mesorectal excision: LapTME RR = 0.98 (95% CrI 0.98-1.1); RoTME RR = 1.1 (95% CrI 0.98-1.4); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.91-1.2). RoTME was associated with improved distal resection margin distance compared to other techniques (SUCRA 99%). LapTME had a higher rate of conversion to open surgery when compared with RoTME: RoTME RR = 0.23 (95% CrI 0.034-0.70). Length of stay was shortest in RoTME compared to other surgical approaches: OpTME mean difference in days (MD) 3.3 (95% CrI 0.12-6.0); LapTME MD 1.7 (95% CrI - 1.1-4.4); TaTME MD 1.3 (95% CrI - 5.2-7.4). There were no differences in 5-year overall survival (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.74, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.79, 3.4), disease-free survival rates (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.76, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.52, 2.4), or anastomotic leakage (LapTME RR = 0.92 (95% CrI 0.63, 1.1); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.48, 1.8); TaTME RR = 0.53 (95% CrI 0.19, 1.2). The overall quality of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments across all outcomes including primary and secondary outcomes was deemed low.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients eligible for a RCT, RoTME achieved improved distal resection margin distance and a shorter length of hospital stay. No other differences were observed in oncological or recovery parameters between (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or trans-anal TME (TaTME). However, the overall quality of evidence across all outcomes was deemed low.

The Multidisciplinary Approach of Rectal Cancer: The Experience of "COMRE Group" Model

Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard to treat locally advanced rectal cancer. This monocentric retrospective study evaluates the results of laparotomic, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in “COMRE GROUP” (REctalCOMmittee). Methods: 327 selected stage I-II-III patients (pts) underwent TME between November 2005 and April 2020 for low or middle rectal cancer; 91 pts underwent open, 200 laparoscopic and 36 robotic TME. Of these, we analyzed the anthropomorphic, intraoperative, anatomopathological parameters and outcome during the follow up. Results: The length of hospital stay was significantly different between robotic TME and the other two groups (8.47 ± 3.54 days robotic vs. 11.93 ± 5.71 laparotomic, p < 0.001; 8.47 ± 3.54 robotic vs. 11.10 ± 7.99 laparoscopic, p < 0.05). The mean number of harvested nodes was higher in the laparotomic group compared to the other two groups (19 ± 9 laparotomic vs. 15 ± 8 laparoscopic, p < 0.001; 19 ± 9 laparotomic vs. 15 ± 7 robotic, p < 0.05). Median follow-up was 52 months (range: 1−169). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the open TME group compared with the laparoscopic one (Chi2 = 13.36, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the experience of the “COMRE” group, laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is a better choice than laparotomy in a multidisciplinary context. Robotic TME has a significant difference in terms of hospital stay compared to the other two groups.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis versus TaTME with immediate coloanal anastomosis and temporary diversion in middle and low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) avoids the difficulty of laparoscopic dissection of the lower part of the rectum. The need for stoma is associated with many stoma-related complications. The objective was to compare TaTME with immediate coloanal anastomosis and protective ileostomy (TaTME-IA) versus Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis (TaTME-TC).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included patients with low rectal cancer at least 1 cm above the top of the anal sphincter. Patients had either TaTME-IA or TaTME-TC. Primary outcome measures were anastomotic and stoma-related complications. Secondary outcomes included rate of permanent stomas, local recurrence, continence, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

TaTME-IA was done in 25 patients versus 20 who had TaTME-TC. TaTME-IA had significantly longer mean operative time (p = 0.04) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (4.5 vs. 11.4 days; p = 0.0001) compared to TaTME-TC. Anastomotic leak was reported in two patients of TaTME-IA versus one patient of TaTME-TC (p = 0.77). Anastomotic stenosis was reported in one patient in each group. No significant difference between groups as regard continence, local recurrence, and QOL.

CONCLUSION

TaTME-TC is a safe option that can be offered for patients with low rectal cancer who refuse or are not amenable to a temporary stoma. Anastomotic complications were similar in both groups. LOS was much longer in TaTME-TC, however, it avoids stoma complications. Both groups had similar functional oncologic outcomes and QOL.

Robotic surgery in colon cancer: current evidence and future perspectives – narrative review

In the last 10 years, surgery has been developing towards minimal invasiveness; therefore, robotic surgery represents the consequent evolution of laparoscopic surgery. Worldwide, surgeons’ performances have been upgraded by the ergonomic developments of robotic systems, leading to several benefits for patients. The introduction into the market of the new Da Vinci Xi system has made it possible to perform all types of surgery on the colon, an in selected cases, to combine interventions in other organs or viscera at the same time. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. From this perspective, single-port robotic colectomy, has reduced the number of robotic ports needed, allowing a better anesthetic outcome and faster recovery. The introduction on the market of new surgical robotic systems from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes.

Initial experience of Chinese surgical robot "Micro Hand S″ assisted versus open and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes in a single center

BACKGROUND

A Chinese surgical robot, Micro Hand S, was introduced for clinical use as a novel robotic platform. This study aimed to comprehensively compare the early experience of the Micro Hand S robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) with conventional approaches.

METHODS

Between May 2017 and April 2018, 99 consecutive patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME (O-/L-/RTME) for rectal cancer were included. Clinical and pathological outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Surgical success as the primary endpoint was defined as the absence of (i) conversion, (ii) incomplete TME, (iii) involved circumferential and distal resection margins (CRM/DRM), (iv) severe complications.

RESULTS

The rate of surgical success was similar (89.7 vs. 86.4 vs. 84.6%, p = 0.851) in the three groups and the respective incidences were as follows: conversion (not applicable, 4.5 vs. 2.3%, p = 1.000), incomplete TME (6.9 vs. 6.8 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.980), involved CRM/DRM (0 vs. 2.3 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.592), severe complications (3.4 vs. 4.5 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.844). Compared with open and laparoscopic surgery, the robotic surgery was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, earlier first flatus time and liquid intake time, and shorter length of hospital stay (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Micro Hand S assisted TME is safe and feasible, showing comparable outcomes than conventional approaches, with superiority in blood loss, recovery of bowel function, length of hospital stay, but with increased operative time.

[Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results]

BACKGROUND

The number of oncological robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections is rapidly increasing in Germany and worldwide; however, the indications, technique and potential limitations of this surgical technique are still discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The standardized modular surgical technique, the results in our clinic and the currently published evidence are presented.

RESULTS

The procedure should be divided into seven modules in terms of standardization and teaching. After the learning curve there are principally no limitations or contraindications. The robotic-assisted approach is superior to open surgery in the following points: blood loss, lymph node harvest, negative circumferential resection margin (CRM), complication rate and length of hospital stay. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy the conversion rate and postoperative sexual and bladder function disorders are decreased. The operating time is longer.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer resection is firmly established and standardized. The technique is superior to open surgery and conventional laparoscopy in some important aspects and is developing into the standard for this disease.

Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews

Regarding the surgical approaches for rectal cancer, many techniques have been reported in randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and reviews of comparisons between two techniques, e.g. open surgery vs laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery vs robotic surgery, or laparoscopic surgery vs transanal total mesorectal excision. Since robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision were developed after laparoscopic surgery had become an established minimally invasive technique, they have each been compared with laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, a review was performed to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision, and to perform such comparisons among ≥3 of the above mentioned approaches, in the expectation that this review will serve as a reference for aiding treatment selection in future. The results of the current review suggest that all of the examined procedures have advantages and disadvantages, but that there are no decisive factors that could be used to select one procedure over any other. At the present time it cannot be demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, transanal total mesorectal excision, or open surgery is superior to the other techniques, and it is important to select the best technique for each patient from among those that a surgeon can perform. It is also important to maintain a flexible attitude that allows new techniques to be adopted as needed in the future.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer

Minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated many benefits in general surgery, particularly in colon and rectal procedures. On the other hand, it has some limitations that must be taken into account, especially technical drawback. Robotic surgery has incorporated many improvements to overcome this disadvantage, such as 3D visualization, articulating instruments assisting complex and precise movements. As a result, robotic colorectal surgery shows less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to oral tolerance and initial flatus (particularly associated with "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" protocol), less conversion rate to open surgery, shortened hospital stay, and longer distal margins compared to laparoscopic and open surgery. This approach also shows a shorter learning curve. Some studies suggest that it could decrease perioperatively or 30 days after the intervention's mortality, raise overall survival, reduce wound infection, and improve functional results, while others show no significant difference. However, it lengthens surgical time. Otherwise, the studies included do not show statistically significant changes in the number of resected lymph nodes and anastomotic leaks. Economic costs remain one of the major concerns, although to date there are no large-scale studies that have evaluated this aspect from a global point of view. Robotic surgery represents a qualitative leap in surgical instruments and, although there is no strong evidence in favor of the use of robotic surgery over laparoscopic or open surgery, there is enough evidence to support its use in colorectal surgery, with potential advantages for patients.

Low-residual diet versus clear-liquid diet for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare a low-residual diet (LRD) with a clear-liquid diet (CLD) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases for randomized clinical trials comparing LRD with CLD for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The last search was performed on September 20, 2019. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation. The outcomes were compared using systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials published between 2005 and 2019 with 4323 participants were included. LRD was comparable with CLD for adequate bowel preparation (P = .79; odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.29). The detection rates for polyps (P = .68; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86-1.27) or adenomas (P = .78; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86-1.23) were similar between the groups. There were significantly fewer advents in individuals in the LRD group: nausea (P = .02; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.94), vomiting (P = .04; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.98), hunger (P < .001; OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.53), and headache (P = .02; OR ,0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93). In addition, significantly more individuals in the LRD group found it easy to complete the diet (P = .01; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15-3.00) and showed willingness to repeat it (P = .005; OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.28-3.89). TSA demonstrated that the cumulative Z curve crossed both the traditional boundary and the trial sequential monitoring boundary for adequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that LRD was comparable with CLD in the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy. More clinical trials are needed to confirm other outcomes.