Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive multivisceral resection for T4b rectal cancer: A 9-year review.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. About 5%-10% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) on presentation. For LARC invading into other structures (i.e. T4b), multivisceral resection (MVR) and/or pelvic exenteration (PE) remains the only potential curative surgical treatment. MVR and/or PE is a major and complex surgery with high post-operative morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been shown to improve short-term post-operative outcomes in other gastrointestinal malignancies, but there is little evidence on its use in MVR, especially so for robotic MVR. To assess the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive MVR (miMVR), and compare post-operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic MVR. This is a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1st January 2015 to 31st March 2023. Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with cT4b rectal cancer and underwent MVR, or stage 4 disease with resectable systemic metastases. Patients who underwent curative MVR for locally recurrent rectal cancer, or metachronous rectal cancer were also included. Exclusion criteria were patients with systemic metastases with non-resectable disease. All patients planned for elective surgery were enrolled into the standard enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with standard peri-operative management for colorectal surgery. Complex surgery was defined based on technical difficulty of surgery (i.e. total PE, bladder-sparing prostatectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection or need for flap creation). Our primary outcomes were the margin status, and complication rates. Categorical values were described as percentages and analysed by the chi-square test. Continuous variables were expressed as median (range) and analysed by Mann-Whitney U test. Cumulative overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates with life table analysis. Log-rank test was performed to determine statistical significance between cumulative estimates. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. A total of 46 patients were included in this study [open MVR (oMVR): 12 (26.1%), miMVR: 36 (73.9%)]. Patients' American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index and co-morbidities were comparable between oMVR and miMVR. There is an increasing trend towards robotic MVR from 2015 to 2023. MiMVR was associated with lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (median 450 vs 1200 mL, P = 0.008), major morbidity (14.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.014), post-operative intra-abdominal collections (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006), post-operative ileus (32.4% vs 66.7%, P = 0.04) and surgical site infection (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006) compared with oMVR. Length of stay was also shorter for miMVR compared with oMVR (median 10 vs 30 d, P = 0.001). Oncological outcomes-R0 resection, recurrence, OS and RFS were comparable between miMVR and oMVR. There was no 30-d mortality. More patients underwent robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR for complex cases (robotic 57.1% vs laparoscopic 7.7%, P = 0.004). The operating time was longer for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR [robotic: 602 (400-900) min, laparoscopic: Median 455 (275-675) min, P < 0.001]. Incidence of R0 resection was similar (laparoscopic: 84.6% vs robotic: 76.2%, P = 0.555). Overall complication rates, major morbidity rates and 30-d readmission rates were similar between laparoscopic and robotic MVR. Interestingly, 3-year OS (robotic 83.1% vs 58.6%, P = 0.008) and RFS (robotic 72.9% vs 34.3%, P = 0.002) was superior for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR. MiMVR had lower post-operative complications compared to oMVR. Robotic MVR was also safe, with acceptable post-operative complication rates. Prospective studies should be conducted to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic vs laparoscopic MVR.