Robot-assisted Surgery For Rectal Cancer Research Articles

Simple pelvimetry predicts the pelvic manipulation time in robot-assisted low and ultra-low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

This study explored the difficulty factors in robot-assisted low and ultra-low anterior resection, focusing on simple measurements of the pelvic anatomy. This was a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 61 patients who underwent robot-assisted low and ultra-low anterior resection for rectal cancer between October 2018 and April 2023. The relationship between the operative time in the pelvic phase and clinicopathological data, especially pelvic anatomical parameters measured on X-ray and computed tomography (CT), was evaluated. The operative time in the pelvic phase was defined as the time between mobilization from the sacral promontory and rectal resection. Robot-assisted low and ultra-low anterior resections were performed in 32 and 29 patients, respectively. The median operative time in the pelvic phase was 126 (range, 31-332)min. A multiple linear regression analysis showed that a short distance from the anal verge to the lower edge of the cancer, a narrow area comprising the iliopectineal line, short anteroposterior and transverse pelvic diameters, and a small angle of the pelvic mesorectum were associated with a prolonged operative time in the pelvic phase. Simple pelvic anatomical measurements using abdominal radiography and CT may predict the pelvic manipulation time in robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer.

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.

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic low anterior resection using ArtiSential® versus robotic approach in patients with rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

Total mesorectal excision using conventional straight fixed devices may be technically difficult because of the narrow and concave pelvis. Several laparoscopic articulating tools have been introduced as an alternative to robotic systems. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic low anterior resection using ArtiSential® and robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. This retrospective study included 682 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer from September 2018 to December 2021. Among them, 82 underwent laparoscopic surgery using ArtiSential® (groupA) and 201 underwent robotic surgery (groupB). A total of 73 [group A; 66.37 ± 11.62; group B 65.79 ± 11.34] patients were selected for each group using a propensity score matching analysis. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics between groupA and B. Mean operative time was longer in groupB than A (163.5 ± 61.9 vs 250.1 ± 77.6min, p < 0.001). Mean length of hospital stay was not significantly different between the two groups (6.2 ± 4.7 vs 6.7 ± 6.1days, p = 0.617). Postoperative complications, reoperation, and readmission within 30 days after surgerywere similar between the two groups. Pathological findings revealed that the circumferential resection margins were above 10mm in both groups (11.00 ± 7.47 vs 10.17 ± 6.25mm, p = 0.960). At least 12 lymph nodes were sufficiently harvested, with no significant difference in the number harvested between the groups (20.5 ± 9.9 vs 19.7 ± 7.3, p = 0.753). Laparoscopic low anterior resection using ArtiSential® can achieve acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. ArtiSential®, a multi-joint and articulating device, may serve a feasible alternative approach to robotic surgery in rectal cancer.

Evaluating body mass index's impact on Da Vinci Robotic rectal cancer surgery, a retrospective study.

Robotic surgery addresses laparoscopic shortcomings and yields comparable results for low and high body mass index (BMI) patients. However, the impact of BMI on postoperative complications in robotic colorectal surgery remains debated. This study assessed the implications of BMI on short outcomes and postoperative complications, highlighting its unique role in the outcomes. Retrospective analysis of 119 patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer (January 2022 to March 2023). Patients grouped by BMI: normal weight (BMI < 23.9kg/m2), overweight (BMI ≥ 23.9kg/m2 and BMI < 27.9kg/m2), and obese (BMI ≥ 27.9kg/m2). Investigated BMI's impact on surgical outcomes and postoperative complications. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in Clavien-Dindo, ASA scores. The obese group had a longer time to flatus (P = 0.002) and a higher re-operation rate than other groups (P = 0.01). The overweight group had a higher anastomotic fistula rate than the obese group. Overall complications showed no significant differences among BMI cohorts (P = 0.0295). There were no significant differences in TNM stages and comorbidities. BMI had no significant impact on overall postoperative complications in robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, higher BMI correlated with a longer time to flatus and increased re-operation rate.

Effect of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery

The effect of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) in laparoscopic surgery is well known and significantly adds to longer hospital length of stay (LOS), postoperative ileus, and inadvertent enterotomies. However, little evidence exists in patients with PAS undergoing robotic-assisted (RA) rectal surgery. All patients undergoing RA surgery for rectal cancer were reviewed. Patients with PAS were divided into minor and major PAS groups, defined as surgery involving >1 quadrant. The primary outcome was the risk of conversion to open surgery. A total of 750 patients were included, 531 in the no-PAS (NPAS) group, 31 in the major PAS group, and 188 in the minor PAS group. Patients in the major PAS group had significantly longer hospital LOS (P<.001) and lower adherence to enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs; P=.004). The conversion rates to open surgery were similar: 3.4% in the NPAS group, 5.9% in the minor PAS group, and 9.7% in the major PAS group (P=.113). Estimated blood loss (EBL; P=.961), operative times (OTs; P=.062), complication rates (P=.162), 30-day readmission (P=.691), and 30-day mortality (P=.494) were similar. Of note, 53 patients underwent lysis of adhesions (LOA). On multivariate analysis, EBL >500mL and LOA significantly influenced conversion to open surgery. EBL >500mL, age >65 years, conversion to open surgery, and prolonged OT were risk factors for prolonged LOS, whereas adherence to ERPs was a protector. PAS did not seem to affect the outcomes in RA rectal surgery. Given this finding, the robotic approach may ultimately provide patients with PAS with similar risk to patients without PAS.

Advantage of robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer

Advantage of robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer

Usefulness of real-time navigation using intraoperative ultrasonography for rectal cancer resection.

At our institute, we usually perform robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer as minimally invasive surgery. It is necessary to recognize the tumor edge accurately when deciding where to place the distal cutting line of the rectum. In this article, with video presentation, we demonstrate the usefulness of intraoperative sonography (IOUS) for detecting the rectal tumor site in robotic surgery. This is the first report to discuss the IOUS image of rectal cancer. After mobilization of the rectum in robotic procedure, the rectum should be straightened. Drop the laparoscopic ultrasonography probe through the 12-mm assistant port and place it at the anterior wall of the rectum. By presenting operative and ultrasound findings simultaneously on a single monitor, the operator can recognize the tumor location accurately and decide on the cutting line. We report three cases in the supporting video presentation. Rectal tumors can be detected by IOUS, and this modality is effective for determining the cutting line of the rectum. Real-time navigation by IOUS can be performed noninvasively and easily, so it is expected to be helpful in cases of robotic rectal cancer resection.

Learning curve for robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre, prospective study.

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly important in colorectal surgery. Recognition of the short, safe learning curve (LC) could potentially improve implementation. We evaluated the extent and safety of the LC in robotic resection for rectal cancer. Consecutive rectal cancer resections (January 2018 to February 2021) were prospectively included from three French centres, involving nine surgeons. LC analyses only included surgeons who had performed more than 25 robotic rectal cancer surgeries. The primary endpoint was operating time LC and the secondary endpoint conversion rate LC. Interphase comparisons included demographic and intraoperative data, operating time, conversion rate, pathological specimen features and postoperative morbidity. In 174 patients (69% men; mean age 62.6 years) the mean operating time was 334.5 ± 92.1 min. Operative procedures included low anterior resection (n = 143) and intersphincteric resection (n = 31). For operating time, there were two or three (centre-dependent) LC phases. After 12-21 cases (learning phase), there was a significant decrease in total operating time (all centres) and an increase in the number of harvested lymph nodes (two centres). For conversion rate, there were two or four LC phases. After 9-14 cases (learning phase), the conversion rate decreased significantly in two centres; in one centre, there was a nonsignificant decrease despite the treatment of significantly more obese patients and patients with previous abdominal surgery. There were no significant differences in interphase comparisons. The LC for RAS in rectal cancer was achieved after 12-21 cases for the operating time and 9-14 cases for the conversion rate. RAS for rectal cancer was safe during this time, with no interphase differences in postoperative complications and circumferential resection margin.

Possible Advantages of Minimal-Invasive Approaches in Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis.

(1) Background: Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer was introduced in the early 1990s; the aim of this analysis was to show possible advantages of minimal-invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery. (2) Methods: From 2016 to 2020, all patients undergoing open, laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery in Germany were retrospectively analyzed regarding sex distribution, conversion rates and in-hospital mortality rates according to nationwide hospital billing data based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). (3) Results: In total, 68,112 patients were analyzed, and most commonly, low anterior rectal resections with primary anastomosis (n = 25,824) were performed with an increase of minimal-invasive procedures over the years (open: 51% to 27%; laparoscopic: 47% to 63% and robotic: 2% to 10%). In-hospital mortality rate was 2.95% (n = 2012). In total, 4.61%, 1.77%, 1.14% and 3.95% of patients with open, laparoscopic, robotic and converted-to-open surgery died during hospital stay, respectively (open vs. laparoscopic p < 0.0001; open vs. robotic p < 0.00001; laparoscopic vs. robotic p = 0.001). Conversion rates were significantly more favorable in the robotic compared to the laparoscopic group. (11.94% vs. 2.53%; p < 0.0001). (4) Conclusion: Minimal-invasive rectal cancer surgery might have some advantages in terms of a reduced in-hospital mortality, and an improved conversion rate for the robotic approach.

Short learning curve in transition from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a prospective study from a Finnish Tertiary Referral Centre.

The narrow pelvis causes special challenges in surgery, and robotic-assisted surgery has been proven beneficial in these circumstances. While robotic surgery has some specific advantages in rectal cancer surgery, there is still limited evidence of the learning curve of the technique involved. The aim here was to study the transition from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted surgery among experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The data for this study were collected from a prospectively compiled register that includes patients operated on by the Da Vinci Xi robot in Tampere University Hospital. Each consecutive rectal cancer patient was included. The information on the surgical and oncological outcomes was analysed. The learning curve was assessed using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. CUSUM already demonstrated an overall positively sloped curve at the beginning of the study, with neither the conversion rate nor morbidity reaching unacceptable thresholds. Conversions (4%) and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-IV 15%, no intraoperative complications) were rare. One patient died within one month and the death was not procedure-associated. While surgical and oncological outcomes were similar among all surgeons, the console times showed a decreasing trend and were shorter among those with more experience in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery can be safely adapted by experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons.

The urinary and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To compare the urinary and sexual outcomes between robot-assisted rectal cancer (RC) surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic RC surgery (LRCS) using a meta-analysis, searches were conducted of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was the primary outcome. Eleven studies (790 patients with RRCS and 888 with LRCS) were included. The IPSS scores were significantly lower for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3months (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 1.8,-0.62, I2 = 89.9%), to 6months (WMD = - 1.13, 95% CI: - 1.74, - 0.52, I2 = 93.3%), and to 12months (WMD = - 0.93, 95% CI: - 1.59, - 0.26, I2 = 93.8%). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores were significantly higher for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3months (WMD = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.28, 5.44, I2 = 92.7%). The female sexual function index (FSFI) scores were significantly higher for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3months (WMD = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.76, I2 = 0), to 6months (WMD = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.93, 2.79, I2 = 24.3%), and to 12months (WMD = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.41, 2.93, I2 = 90.9%). RRCS also achieved a better recovery of the urological and sexual function than LRCS for patients with RC. Larger-scale prospective randomized control trials are needed to verify these results.

Risk factors for and longitudinal course of male sexual dysfunction after robotic rectal cancer surgery.

The aim of this work was to investigate the risk factors associated with the incidence of sexual dysfunction in patients who underwent robot-assisted surgery with several treatment options, such as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and lateral lymph node dissection, and clarify the longitudinal course of erectile function in risk groups. A total of 203 male patients who underwent robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between 2013 and 2019 were included. The risk factors for erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction as well as the longitudinal course of erectile function were retrospectively investigated in all cohorts and several risk groups, including those who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, lateral lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy. Erectile dysfunction was assessed using the International Index of Erectile Function and ejaculatory dysfunction was assessed using original questions. The survey was performed preoperatively and at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction occurred in 46.8% and 15.7% of the patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was an independent risk factor for erectile dysfunction. Erectile function recovered longitudinally to the preoperative level overall, as well as in lateral lymph node dissection and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy subgroups; however, recovery was poor in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group, even at 12 months postoperatively. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was found to be a risk factor for erectile dysfunction after robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. Erectile function recovered postoperatively in patients undergoing lateral lymph node dissection; however, those receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy showed poor recovery, even at 12 months postoperatively.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery.

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Влияние факторов операционного риска на непосредственные результаты робот-ассистированной хирургии при раке прямой кишки

Aim: to evaluate the perioperative results of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer in a group of high-risk patients and the influence of surgical risk factors (obesity, male gender, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), as well as the tumor localization within 8 cm of the anal verge). Patients and Methods: the retrospective study included 223 cases of patients (48.43% men, 51.57% women) with rectal cancer who underwent robot-assisted surgery in the period from 2015 to 2021. Patients had a high surgical risk and were included in the study in the presence of one of the following factors: body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2, male gender, preoperative CRT, tumor localization within 8 cm of the anal verge. In this study, the relationship of BMI, CRT, age and gender of patients with parameters such as 30-day postoperative mortality, the number of postoperative complications according to the Clavien — Dindo classification, conversion rate, volume of intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, quality of total mesorectumectomy (TME), number of removed lymph nodes, frequency of lesions of the circular and distal edges of resection was evaluated. Correlations of stages T and N, tumor localization, ASA index and the presence of operations in the anamnesis with the above parameters were also checked in order to exclude their influence on the studied phenomena. Results: correlations of risk factors with the surgery time were revealed using the Spearman's rank-order correlation: surgery time — gender: correlation coefficient (ρ) 0.25, p&lt;0.001; surgery time — BMI: ρ=0.23, p=0.001; surgery time — CRT: ρ=0.17, p&lt;0.01; surgery time — Z-line: ρ=0.27, p=0.003. The correlation of circumferential resection margin (CRM) quality with the Z-line ( ρ=0.26, p=0.011) was also revealed. Conclusion: when performing robot-assisted surgery for malignant rectal tumors, there was no effect of surgical risk factors (male gender, obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2), CRT) on the conversion rate, as well as on the immediate results of surgical treatment. Despite this, the complexity of such surgeries in patients of this category undoubtedly increases, which is noted in an increase in the time spent on them. KEYWORDS: robot-assisted surgery, rectal cancer, oncology, risk factors, surgical treatment, colorectal cancer. FOR CITATION: Moiseev M.E., Gladyshev D.V., Kovalenko S.A. et al. Effect of surgical risk factors on the immediate results of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. Russian Medical Inquiry. 2023;7(4):191–195 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2587-6821-2023-7-4-191-195.

Feasibility and Safety of Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Short-Term Outcomes of a Pilot Study with da Vinci Xi Platform During COVID-19.

Background: Colorectal cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. Approximately, one of three diagnosed colorectal cancers is a rectal cancer. Recent developments in the field of rectal surgery have promoted the use of surgical robots, which are of great need when surgeons face anatomical difficulties, such as a narrowed male pelvis, bulky tumor, or obese patients. This study aims to evaluate the clinical results of robotic rectal cancer surgery during the introduction period of a surgical robot system. Moreover, the period of the introduction of this technique coincided with the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Since December 2019, the Surgery Department of the University Hospital of Varna has become the newest and the most modern Robotic Surgery Center of Competence in Bulgaria, equipped with the most advanced da Vinci Xi surgical system. From January 2020 to October 2020 a total number of 43 patients have underwent surgical treatment, of which 21 had roboticassisted procedures and the rest - open procedures. Results: Patient characteristics were close between the studied groups. The mean patient age in robotic surgery was 65 years, as six of these patients were females, while in case of open surgery these values were to 70 and 6, respectively. Two thirds (66.7%) of the patients operated on with da Vinci Xi were with tumor stage 3 or 4 and approximately 10% had the tumor located in the lower part of the rectum. The median value of the operation time was 210 min, while the length of hospital stay was 7 days. These short-term parameters were not found to have a large difference in respect to the open surgery group. A significant difference is depicted for the number of lymph nodes resected and the blood loss, with both parameters demonstrating advantage for the robot-assisted surgery. The blood loss is more than twice less than the case of open surgery. Conclusions: The results confidently showed the successful introduction of the robot-assisted platform in the surgery department despite the limitations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This technique is expected to become the main choice of minimally invasive technique applied to all types of colorectal cancer surgery in the Robotic Surgery Center of Competence.

Robotic resection of the rectum - what are the advantages?

Surgical treatment is the most important part of multimodal management of rectal cancer. In recent years, minimally invasive surgery has been preferred. Minimally invasive procedures include laparoscopy and more recently robotic surgery. Robotic surgery has been developed to eliminate the shortcomings of laparoscopy, especially the parallel position of instruments and their limited movement. The advantages of a robotic system should be most apparent in narrow and deep spaces, i.e. the lesser pelvis. The aim of this study was to analyze the short-term results of robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors. The study is a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 220 patients with robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. The cohort was analyzed in terms of length of surgery, blood loss, number of conversions to open surgery, completeness of TME, distal and circumferential resection margin positivity, length of hospital stays and number of 30-day rehospitalizations. In addition, 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo score. Robotic-assisted surgeries lasted an average of 184 minutes. In total, 5 operations were converted, i.e. 2.3%. Complete mesorectum was achieved in 90% of the patients. Severe postoperative complications, Clavien-Dindo score 3-4, were observed in 14% of the patients. Anastomotic complications occurred in 9.6% of the patients. The mean length of the hospital stay was 8.4 days. Robotic surgery for rectal tumors is a safe method with an acceptable rate of complications. An established training method and a high degree of standardization of the surgical procedures are indisputable advantages of robotic systems, making it possible to achieve very good results in a short time. In terms of perioperative and early postoperative outcomes, robotic surgery outperforms laparoscopic surgery in some parameters.

Surgical Techniques for Robot-assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Surgical Techniques for Robot-assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Safety of Robot-assisted Rectal Cancer Surgery with Lateral Lymph-node Dissection in Elderly Patients

Safety of Robot-assisted Rectal Cancer Surgery with Lateral Lymph-node Dissection in Elderly Patients

A comparative study of the pathological outcomes of robot-assisted versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

The use of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but the pathological outcomes have not been fully clarified. We compared the surgical and pathological outcomes between robot-assisted and open surgery in specimens from patients operated on for rectal cancer. All patients who underwent resection for rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018 were included (n=137). Specimens were divided into 3 sections to analyze the pathology of the lymph nodes. The total specimen lengths were shorter in the robot-assisted group than in the open surgery group (mean±standard deviation: 29.1±8.6 cm vs. 33.8±9.9 cm, P=0.004) because of a shorter proximal resection margin (21.7±8.7 cm vs. 26.4±10.6 cm, P=0.006). The number of recruited lymph nodes (35.8±21.8 vs. 39.6±16.5, P=0.604) and arterial vessel length (8.84±2.6 cm vs. 8.78±2.4 cm, P=0.891) did not differ significantly between the 2 surgical approaches. Lymph node metastases were found in 33 of 137 samples (24.1%), but the numbers did not differ significantly between the procedures. Among these 33 cases, metastatic lymph nodes were located in the mesorectum (75.8%), in the sigmoid colon mesentery (33.3%), and at the arterial ligation site of the inferior mesenteric artery (12.1%). The circumferential resection margin and the proportion of complete mesorectal fascia were comparable between the groups. There were no significant differences between the 2 surgical approaches regarding arterial vessel length, recruitment of lymph node metastases, and resection margins.

Male urogenital function after robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort study

BackgroundUrogenital dysfunction is recognized as a serious complication affecting patient quality of life after rectal cancer surgery to treat rectal cancer; however, the studies focus on the urogenital function after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery are limited.MethodsMale patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) were prospectively enrolled. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scale were used to compare the urogenital function of the two groups preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.ResultsEighty-nine patients who planned to undergo R-TME and L-TME were prospectively enrolled; 77 patients of these patients (86.5%) completed all questionnaires at all time points and were thus included in the final analysis. Of the included patients, 38 underwent R-TME and 39 underwent L-TME. There was no significant difference in age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor location, neoadjuvant therapy, operation method, postoperative pathological results and adjuvant therapy between the two groups. Preoperative urogenital function was similar in both groups; however, the IPSS was significantly lower in R-TME patients than that in T-TME patients at 6 months and 12 months [(7.82 ± 2.25 vs. 9.95 ± 3.01, P = 0.006; 7.62 ± 2.5 vs. 9.12 ± 2.64, P = 0.012)]. IIEF-5 scores decreased 3 months after R-TME and L-TME surgery (14.87 ± 3.27 vs. 13.92 ± 3.62, p = 0.231) and then gradually increased; at 12 months, IIEF-5 scores were comparable to those at baseline in both groups. IIEF-5 scores were higher in R-TME patients than those in L-TME patients at 6 months (18.55 ± 3.45 vs. 16.75 ± 3.26, P = 0.021), but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 12 months (21.22 ± 3.06 vs. 19.95 ± 3.03, P = 0.071).ConclusionsThe robotic approach for TME was associated with more rapid restoration of male urogenital function than the laparoscopic approach.