Robotic-assisted Rectal Surgery Research Articles

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability. An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer. This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03). RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.

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.

Learning curve for robotic-assisted rectal surgery by a single surgeon

Learning curve for robotic-assisted rectal surgery by a single surgeon

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.

Propensity score-matched analysis of the short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

The advantages of robot-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) over conventional laparoscope-assisted rectal surgery (LARS) remain controversial. This study was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of RARS and LARS. We retrospectively analyzed data of 207 patients who had undergone either RARS (n = 97) or LARS (n = 110) for rectal cancer (RC) from 2018 to 2020. A 1:1 matched propensity score-matched analysis was performed and the surgical outcomes of the two groups compared. After matching, a well-balanced cohort of 136 patients was analyzed (n = 68 in each group), and there was no significant difference in the median operative time. The RARS group had less intraoperative blood loss than the LARS group. There were no significant differences in length of postoperative hospital stay or complication rate between the two groups. In the subgroup of lower RC, defined as the inferior edge of the tumor being within the rectum distal to the peritoneal reflection, the rate of sphincter preservation was higher in the RARS group (81.8% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.021). This study shows that RARS is a safe and feasible approach for RC compared with LARS, RARS having the advantage of more often preserving the sphincter.

Prospective analysis of impact of learning curve in robotic-assisted rectal surgery in the high-volume Indian tertiary care centre.

Minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer has gained prominence owing to its various advantages in surgical outcomes. Due to rapid adoption of robotics in rectal surgery, we intended to assess the pace in which surgeons gain proficiency using cumulative summation (CUSUM) technique in learning curve. This was a prospective study of 262 rectal cancer cases who underwent robotic-assisted low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection (RA-LAR and RA-APR). Parameters considered for the study were console time, docking time, lymph nodal yield, total operative time and post-operative outcomes. We used Manipal technique of port placements and modified centroside docking for the procedure. The mean age of our study was 46.62 ± 5.7 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.51 ± 3.2 kg/m2. 215 (82.06%) underwent RA-LAR and 47 (17.93%) underwent RA-APR. 2.67% of cases required to open during our initial period. We had three phases of learning curve, initial phase (11th case), plateau phase (29th case) and then phases of mastery (30th case onwards). Our mean total operative time reduced from 5.5 to 3.5 h (210 ± 8.2 min), console time from 4.5 to 2.9 h (174 ± 4.5 min) and docking time from 15 to 9 ± 1 min from 30th case onwards. RA surgeries for rectal cancer have got good oncological and functional outcomes in high BMI, male pelvis and low rectal cancers. Learning curve can be shortened with constant self-auditing of the surgeon and team with each surgeries performed, reviewing the steps and by improving techniques.

Indocyanine Green-enhanced Fluorescence to Assess Bowel Perfusion During Robotic-assisted Rectal Surgery

ABSTRACT Introduction Anastomotic leakage following rectal surgery is a major complication, which may occur due to insufficient vascular supply. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of using indocyanine green fluorescence angiography for intraoperative assessment of vascular anastomotic perfusion in robotic low anterior resection. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study that included consecutive patients undergoing robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer between March 2017 and February 2019. Intraoperative use of indocyanine green fluorescence for assessment of bowel perfusion was performed in patients operated after April 2018. Those who underwent the surgery before that comprised the control group. The primary outcome was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage between the two groups. Results Each group included 48 patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic data or tumor characteristics. The planned anastomotic site was revised in 1 of 48 patients who received indocyanine green fluorescence based on the surgeon's subjective finding of a hypo-perfused distal segment. Postoperative anastomotic leakage was confirmed clinically and radiologically in one patient (2.8%) in the indocyanine green group compared with two patients (4.16%) in the control group. Conclusion Indocyanine green fluorescence may be considered a useful intraoperative tool for assessment of vascular perfusion of bowel during robotic rectal surgery. Change in the site of resection and/or anastomosis may be indicated, possibly affecting the incidence of anastomotic leakage.

Research Perspective on Patient-Related Functional Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Rectal Surgery Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois Funding/Support: None reported. Financial Disclosure: None reported. Correspondence: Mohammad Ali Abbass, M.D., M.P.H., Northwestern University, Surgery, Arkes Pavilion, 676 N St Claire St., Suite 6049, Chicago, IL 60611. E-mail: [email protected]

Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Rectal Cancer: Real-World Experience over 8 Years of Multiple Institutions with High-Volume Robotic-Assisted Surgery.

Simple SummaryThe aim of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RRS) in hospitals with a high-volume of robotic-assisted surgeries. This study enrolled patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing RRS from three high-volume institutions from December 2011 to June 2020. Compared with other studies, our results revealed the equivalent or superior perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes. Hence, RRS is an effective, safe, and feasible technique for patients with rectal cancers in high-volume hospitals.The perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RRS) are unclear. This retrospective observational study enrolled patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing RRS from three high-volume institutions in Taiwan. Of the 605 enrolled patients, 301 (49.75%), 176 (29.09%), and 116 (19.17%) had lower, middle, and upper rectal cancers, respectively. Low anterior resection (377, 62.31%) was the most frequent surgical procedure. Intraoperative blood transfusion was performed in 10 patients (2%). The surgery was converted to an open one for one patient (0.2%), and ten (1.7%) patients underwent reoperation. The overall complication rate was 14.5%, including 3% from anastomosis leakage. No deaths occurred during surgery and within 30 days postoperatively. The positive rates of distal resection margin and circumferential resection margin were observed in 21 (3.5%) and 30 (5.0%) patients, respectively. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates for patients with stage I–III rectal cancer were 91.1% and 86.3%, respectively. This is the first multi-institutional study in Taiwan with 605 patients from three high-volume hospitals. The overall surgical and oncological outcomes were equivalent or superior to those estimated in other studies. Hence, RRS is an effective and safe technique for rectal resection in high-volume hospitals.

Patient-Related Functional Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Rectal Surgery Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Robotic surgery has gained significant momentum in rectal cancer surgery. Most studies focus on short-term and oncological outcomes, showing similar outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Increasing survivorship mandates greater emphasis on quality of life and long-term function. This study aimed to compare quality of life and urinary, sexual, and lower GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgeries. A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials Register, and Cochrane Library-identified articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic rectal resections was performed. The outcome measures were quality of life and urinary, sexual, and GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection patient groups. Where comparable data were available, results were pooled for analysis. The initial search revealed 1777 papers; 101 were reviewed in full, and 14 studies were included for review. Eleven assessed male sexual function; 7 favored robotic surgery, and the remaining studies showed no significant difference. Pooled analysis of 5 studies reporting rates of male sexual dysfunction at 12 months showed significantly lower rates after robotic surgery (OR, 0.51; p = 0.043). Twelve studies compared urinary function. Six favored robotic surgery, but in 2 studies, a difference was seen at 6 months but not sustained at 12 months. Pooled analysis of 4 studies demonstrated significantly better urinary function scores at 12 months after robotic surgery (OR, 0.26; p = 0.016). Quality of life and GI function were equivalent, but very little data exist for these parameters. A small number of studies compare outcomes between these groups; only 2 are randomized. Different scoring systems limit comparisons and pooling of data. The limited available data suggest that robotic rectal cancer resection improves male sexual and urinary functions when compared with laparoscopy, but there is no difference in quality of life or GI function. Future studies should report all facets of functional outcomes using standardized scoring systems.

Evaluation of the learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery using the cumulative sum method.

There is no clear evidence on the number of cases required to master the techniques required in robot-assisted surgery for different surgical fields and techniques. The purpose of this study was to clarify the learning curve of robot-assisted rectal surgery for malignant disease by surgical process. The study retrospectively analyzed robot-assisted rectal surgeries performed between April 2014 and July 2020 for which the operating time per process was measurable. The following learning curves were created using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method: (1) console time required for total mesorectal excision (CUSUM tTME), (2) time from peritoneal incision to inferior mesenteric artery dissection (CUSUM tIMA), (3) time required to mobilize the descending and sigmoid colon (CUSUM tCM), and (4) time required to mobilize the rectum (CUSUM tRM). Each learning curve was classified into phases 1-3 and evaluated. A fifth learning curve was evaluated for robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection (CUSUM tLLND). This study included 149 cases. Phase 1 consisted of 32 cases for CUSUM tTME, 30 for CUSUM tIMA, 21 for CUSUM tCM, and 30 for CUSUM tRM; the respective numbers were 54, 48, 45, and 61 in phase 2 and 63, 71, 83, and 58 in phase 3. There was no significant difference in the number of cases in each phase. Lateral lymph node dissection was initiated in the 76th case where robot-assisted rectal surgery was performed. For CUSUM tLLND, there were 12 cases in phase 1, 6 in phase 2, and 7 cases in phase 3. These findings suggest that the learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery is the same for all surgical processes. Surgeons who already have adequate experience in robot-assisted surgery may be able to acquire stable technique in a smaller number of cases when they start to learn other techniques.

Introduction and Short-term Results of Robot-assisted Rectal Surgery in a City Hospital

Introduction and Short-term Results of Robot-assisted Rectal Surgery in a City Hospital

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

It remains controversial whether the advantages of robotic-assisted surgery are beneficial for rectal cancer (RC). The study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) compared with those of conventional laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery. We retrospectively analyzed 539 consecutive patients with stage I-IV RC who had undergone elective surgery between January 2010 and December 2020, using propensity score-matched analysis. After propensity score matching, we enrolled 200 patients (n = 100 in each groups). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in terms of age (p = 0.04) and body mass index (p < 0.01). After matching, clinicopathologic outcomes were similar between the groups, but estimated operative time was longer and postoperative lymphorrhea was more frequent in the RARS group. Estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to laparotomy, and incidence of anastomotic leakage or reoperation were significantly lower in the RARS group. No surgical mortality was observed in either group. No significant differences were observed in terms of positive resection margins or number of lymph nodes harvested. RARS was safe and technically feasible, and achieved acceptable short-term outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in RC surgery that require validation in further studies.

Evaluation of difficulty factors in the learning phase of laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted rectal surgery

Evaluation of difficulty factors in the learning phase of laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted rectal surgery

Surgical Outcomes of Robot-assisted Rectal Surgery for Highly Difficult Cases

Surgical Outcomes of Robot-assisted Rectal Surgery for Highly Difficult Cases

Impact of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching study

BackgroundThe application of minimally invasive surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and a history of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) remains controversial. This retrospective study with propensity score matching (PSM) investigated the impact of PAS on robotic-assisted rectal surgery outcomes in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).MethodsIn total, 203 patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent preoperative CCRT and robotic-assisted rectal surgery between May 2013 and December 2019 were enrolled. Patients were categorized into PAS and non-PAS groups based on the PAS history. The PSM caliper matching method with 1-to-3 matches was used to match PAS patients with non-PAS.ResultsOf the 203 enrolled patients, 35 were PAS patients and 168 were non-PAS patients. After PSM, 32 PAS patients and 96 non-PAS patients were included for analysis. No significant between-group differences were noted in the perioperative outcomes, including median console time (165 min (PAS) vs. 175 min (non-PAS), P = 0.4542) and median operation time (275 min (PAS) vs. 290 min (non-PAS), P = 0.5943) after PSM. Postoperative recovery and overall complication rates were also similar (all P > 0.05). Moreover, the between-group differences in pathological or short-term oncological outcomes were also nonsignificant (all P > 0.05). No 30-day postoperative deaths were observed in either group.ConclusionThe current results indicate that robotic-assisted surgery is safe and feasible for PAS patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing preoperative CCRT. However, future prospective randomized clinical trials are required to verify these findings.

Transrectal ultrasound image-based real-time augmented reality guidance in robot-assisted laparoscopic rectal surgery: a proof-of-concept study.

Surgical treatments for low-rectal cancer require careful considerations due to the low location of cancer in rectums. Successful surgical outcomes highly depend on surgeons' ability to determine clear distal margins of rectal tumors. This is a challenge for surgeons in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, since tumors are often concealed in rectums and robotic surgical instruments do not provide tactile feedback for tissue diagnosis in real time. This paper presents the development and evaluation of an intraoperative ultrasound-based augmented reality framework for surgical guidance in robot-assisted rectal surgery. Framework implementation consists in calibrating the transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and the endoscopic camera (hand-eye calibration), generating a virtual model and registering it to the endoscopic image via optical tracking, and displaying the augmented view on a head-mounted display. An experimental validation setup is designed to evaluate the framework. The evaluation process yields a mean error of 0.9mm for the TRUS calibration, a maximum error of 0.51mm for the hand-eye calibration of endoscopic cameras, and a maximum RMS error of 0.8mm for the whole framework. In the experiment with a rectum phantom, our framework guides the surgeon to accurately localize the simulated tumor and the distal resection margin. This framework is developed with our clinical partner, based on actual clinical conditions. The experimental protocol and the high level of accuracy show the feasibility of seamlessly integrating this framework within the surgical workflow.

The third arm: the surgeon's friend in the management of intraoperative complications in robotic-assisted rectal surgery.

The third arm: the surgeon's friend in the management of intraoperative complications in robotic-assisted rectal surgery.

A prospective study of robotic rectal surgery for carcinoma rectum assessing the functional and oncological outcomes: Hype or hope?

661 Background: Robotic surgical systems have dramatically changed minimally invasive surgery as they could potentially address limitations of laparoscopic rectal surgery. This prospective observational study is conducted to evaluate the safety, technique, and outcomes (operative, postoperative,functional and oncological long term) of robotic-assisted rectal surgery for carcinoma rectum in the Indian set up. Methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted between 2010 and 2018, including 135 patients, diagnosed of rectal carcinoma. Patients underwent robotic rectal cancer surgery in form of either low anterior resection (LAR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR). Intraoperative, postoperative data were analysed. Results: Out of 135 patients, 67.5% were male, aged between 34-80 years, 85% had ECOG 0. All patients had adenocarcinoma rectum, with 15% mid rectum and 55% in lower rectum. 85% had stage III disease. 77.5% had received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. 82.5% had LAR and 17.5% APR. Average operative time including docking time and surgery time was 226.32 min (170-300 min), mean blood loss was 146.76 ml (120-200 ml), there were 3 conversion to open surgery. Bowel sounds appeared on average on 3rd day. All margins were negative in all patients, mesorectal grade was complete in 95% and near complete in 5%. Mean number of lymph nodes harvested is 9.5 (2-32). Complete pathological response rate was 39%. 2 patients had anastomotic dehiscence after 1 month. Minor complications were noticed in 10% patients. All had acceptable quality of life and well retained bladder function, with 18% sexual dysfunction. Five year DFS was 85% and OS was 94%. Local recurrence was 2.1%. Conclusions: This is one of the largest single center Indian data available. In conclusion, robotic rectal surgery has several benefits in the treatment and should be part of the armamentarium of the experienced surgeon dealing with rectal cancer. We conclude that the robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery is safe and an oncologically feasible technique with well retained functional outcomes and has lived up to its hope.