Robotic Intersphincteric Resection Research Articles

Robotic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a cumulative sum analysis for the learning curve.

This study aimed to assess the learning curve of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 89 patients who underwent robot-assisted intersphincteric resection. All surgeries were performed by the same group of surgeons at our institution between June 2016 and April 2021. The learning curve was evaluated using a cumulative sum analysis and the best-fit curve. The different stages of the learning curve were compared based on patient characteristics and short-term clinical outcomes to evaluate their impact on clinical efficacy. The minimum number of cases required to overcome the learning curve was 47. The learning curve was divided into the learning improvement and proficiency stages. Significant differences were observed in the operation time and the number of lymph nodes between the two stages (P < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss, first postoperative exhaust time, postoperative complications, 3-year progression-free survival, overall survival, and local recurrence-free survival (P > 0.05). Robotic-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer exhibits a learning curve that can be divided into two stages: namely, learning improvement and proficiency. Achieving proficiency requires a minimum of 47 surgical cases.

Robotic intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer

This systematic review evaluated and compared the two currently available intersphincteric resection techniques (robotic and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection) for low rectal cancer, with the final aim of comparing associated factors between the two techniques. The assessed factors included surgical duration, hospital stay, complications, overall survival, local recurrence, and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). A literature search of the search engines “PubMed”, “SCOPUS”, and “Web of Science” was conducted, with a time interval set between 2015 and 2023. The initial search yielded 57 studies, of which 10 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Hence, data was extracted from only these 10 studies. The average reported robotic surgery time varied between 197 and 472 mins, while the laparoscopic surgery time varied between 240 and 325 mins. Conversely, the overall survival and local recurrence rates were 89.7% and 6.7% for robotic and 87.9% and 6.2% for laparoscopic resection, respectively. In addition, complications were reported in 16.5% and 18.2% of robotic and laparoscopic resection cases, respectively. This systematic review showed that although the surgery duration is longer in robotic resection compared to laparoscopic resection, the former technique is associated with lower rates of complications and local recurrence, and improved overall survival. In addition, few studies have reported on the prevalence of LARS; therefore, we recommend that this field be studied and included in the reported data of the upcoming studies to allow more conclusive evidence regarding prevalence of LARS among the two groups of intersphincteric resections.

Sphincter-preserving effect of robotic-assisted intersphincteric resection for ultra-low rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is a viable option for sphincter preservation in early ultra-low rectal cancer, but postoperative anal dysfunction remains a concern. This study evaluates the outcomes of robotic ISR with coloanal anastomosis in early ultra-low rectal cancer, comparing its efficacy and safety with laparoscopic ISR. Retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 74 consecutive patients undergoing robotic intersphincteric resection (R-ISR) for early ultra-low rectal cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 (R-ISR group), matched with 110 patients undergoing laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (L-ISR). After 1:1 propensity score matching, each group comprised 68 patients. Comparative analyses covered surgical outcomes, complications, long-term results, and anal function. The R-ISR group showed longer total operative time than the L-ISR group (211.7 ± 25.3min vs. 191.2 ± 23.0min, p = 0.001), but less intraoperative bleeding (55.2 ± 20.7ml vs. 69.2 ± 22.9ml, p = 0.01). R-ISR group had fewer conversions to APR surgery (6/8.8% vs. 14/20.6%). Other perioperative indicators were similar. R-ISR exhibited a smaller tumor margin, superior mesorectal integrity, and comparable histopathological outcomes. Postoperative complications, 3-year and 5-year DFS, and OS were similar. At the 1-year follow-up, the Wexner Incontinence Score favored R-ISR (9.24 ± 4.03 vs. 11.06 ± 3.77, p = 0.048). Although R-ISR prolongs the operative time, its surgical safety and oncological outcomes are similar to conventional ISR procedures. Furthermore, it further shortens the margin of anal preservation, reduces the rate of conversion to APR surgery, and improves postoperative anal function.

Single-Port Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for the Treatment of Rectal Cancer.

The da Vinci Single-port (SP) system is designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery in a narrow space. We developed a new procedure of intersphincteric resection (ISR) using the SP platform and evaluated the technical safety and feasibility of this procedure for the treatment of very low rectal cancer. Eleven rectal cancer patients who underwent SP robotic ISR between August 2020 and July 2021 were included. Patients' clinical characteristics, operative and pathologic findings of the patients were retrospectively analyzed. The median tumor height was 3cm (range, 2-4cm). A single docking was performed, and the median docking time was 3min 10sec (range, 2min 50sec-3min 30sec). The median total operation time was 210min (range, 150-280min), and the median time of pelvic dissection was 57min (range, 45-68min). All patients presented with negative distal resection margins [median 1cm (range, 0.5-2.0cm)], and only one patient had less than 1mm of circumferential resection margin (0.9mm). Our initial experience suggests that SP robotic ISR is safe and feasible.

Treatment of side limb full-thickness prolapse of the side-to-end coloanal anastomosis follow-ing intersphincteric resection: a case report and review of literature.

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) with coloanal anastomosis is an oncologically safe anus-preserving technique for very low-lying rectal cancers. Most studies focused on oncological and functional outcomes of ISR with very few evaluating long-term postoperative anorectal complications. Full-thickness prolapse of the neorectum is a relatively rare complication. This report presents the case of a 70-year-old woman presenting with full-thickness prolapse of the side limb of the side-to-end coloanal anastomosis occurring 2 weeks after the stoma closure and 2 months after a robotic partial ISR performed with the Da Vinci single-port platform (Intuitive Surgical System Inc.). The anastomosis was revised through resection of the side limb and conversion of the side-to-end anastomosis into an end-to-end handsewn anastomosis with interrupted stitches. This study describes the first case of full-thickness prolapse of the side limb of the side-to-end handsewn coloanal anastomosis following ISR. Moreover, a revision of all reported cases of post-ISR full-thickness and mucosal prolapse was performed.

Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes.

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection. The application of the robotic approach to ISR (RISR) has been described by few specialized surgical teams with several differences regarding approach and technique. This review aims to discuss the technical aspects of RISR by evaluating point by point each surgical controversy. Moreover, a systematic review was performed to report the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RISR. Postoperative morbidities after RISR are acceptable. RISR allows adequate surgical margins and adequate oncological outcomes. RISR may result in severe bowel and genitourinary dysfunction affecting the quality of life in a portion of patients.

Postoperative Functional Management Contributes to Anal Functional Recovery in Patients With Low Rectal Cancer After Robotic Total Intersphincteric Resection.

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of the comprehensive post-operative management including low-frequency endo-anal electrical stimulation and daily suppository usage on post-operative anal functional recovery for low rectal cancer patients who underwent robotic total intersphincteric resection (ISR).Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 42 low rectal cancer patients who underwent robotic total ISR, of which 23 patients received comprehensive post-operative management, including biofeedback low-frequency endo-anal electrical stimulation and daily suppository usage (management group). Wexner score and anorectal manometric values, including resting pressure (RP), maximum squeeze pressure (MSP), initial perceived volume (IPV), and maximum tolerated volume (MTV), were assessed and compared.Results: A total of 42 low rectal cancer patients were included in our study. The RP at 6 months after ISR (40.95 ± 6.95 mmHg vs. 33.29 ± 5.40 mmHg, p = 0.002) and MSP at 3 and 6 months after ISR (72.05 ± 10.16 mmHg vs. 69.05 ± 8.67 mmHg, p = 0.031; 91.57 ± 15.47 mmHg vs. 84.05 ± 12.94 mmHg, p = 0.039, respectively) were significantly higher in the management group. The median IPV at 1 and 3 months after ISR (17.81 ± 3.61 ml vs. 15.43 ± 5.08 ml, p = 0.038; 20.19 ± 4.35 ml vs. 17.67 ± 5.16 ml, p = 0.044, respectively) and MTV at 3 months after ISR (83.71 ± 5.44 ml vs. 76.10 ± 8.42 ml, p = 0.012) were significantly higher in the management group. Wexner scores at 1 and 3 months after closure of stoma (COS) in the management group were significantly lower (11.3 ± 2.9 vs. 13.4 ± 3.0, p = 0.041; 8.9 ± 2.0 vs. 10.6 ± 2.4, p = 0.036, respectively).Conclusions: Comprehensive post-operative management could accelerate the recovery of sphincteric function and anal sensitivity after robotic total ISR and could also contribute to treatment of fecal incontinence followed by COS.

Latest Advances in Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer.

Background Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been a preferable alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal preservation in patients with low rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ISR and robotic ISR have been widely used with the proposal of 2 cm or even 1 cm rule of distal free margin and the development of minimally invasive technology. The aim of this review was to describe the newest advancements of ISR. Methods A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify studies on ISR techniques, preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT), complications, oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes and thereby to summarize relevant information and controversies involved in ISR. Results Although PCRT is employed to avoid positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and decrease local recurrence, it tends to engender damage of anorectal function and patients' quality of life (QoL). Common complications after ISR include anastomotic leakage (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), urinary retention, fistula, pelvic sepsis, and prolapse. CRM involvement is the most important predictor for local recurrence. Preoperative assessment and particularly rectal endosonography are essential for selecting suitable patients. Anal dysfunction is associated with age, PCRT, location and growth of anastomotic stoma, tumour stage, and resection of internal sphincter. Conclusions The ISR technique seems feasible for selected patients with low rectal cancer. However, the postoperative QoL as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.

Anorectal complications after robotic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer.

Robotic intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been introduced for sphincter-preservation in the treatment of low rectal cancer. However, many patients experience anorectal symptoms and defecatory dysfunction after ISR. This study aims to evaluate theanorectal complications that developafter ISR. The medical records of 108 patients who underwent robotic ISR at Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan between December 2011 and June 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Photographic records of perineal conditions were documented at the following time intervals after surgery: 1day, 2weeks, 1, 2, 3 and 6months. Clinical outcomes and treatment results were analysed. Eighty-five patients (78.7%) developed edematous hemorrhoids after surgery. These subsided at a median of 56days after operation (range 23-89days). Forty-six patients (42.6%) were found to have anal stenosis requiring anal dilatation. Sixteen patients (14.8%) had neorectal mucosal prolapse, which was noted to occur at an average of 98days after surgery (range 41-162days). Multivariate analysis showed that the occurrence of edematous hemorrhoids was associated with operating time (P = 0.043), and male gender was a significant risk factor for anal stenosis (P = 0.007). This is the first study reporting on the clinical outcomes of anorectal status after robotic ISR. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term effects of these anorectal complications.

Functional results of robotic total intersphincteric resection with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis

BackgroundIn recent decades there has been an increasing trend toward sphincter-preserving procedures for the treatment of low rectal cancer. Robotic surgery is considered to be particularly beneficial when operating in the deep pelvis, where laparoscopy presents technical limitations. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the functional outcomes in patients affected by rectal cancer after robotic total intersphincteric resection (ISR) with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Methods and proceduresFrom March 2008 to October 2012, 23 consecutive patients affected by distal rectal adenocarcinoma underwent robotic ISR. Operative, clinical, pathological and functional data regarding continence or presence of a low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) were prospectively collected in a database. ResultsTwenty-three consecutive patients were included in the study: 8 men and 15 women. The mean age was 60.2 years (range 28–73). Eighteen (78.3%) had neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Conversion rate was nil. The mean operative time was 296.01 min and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.43 ± 1.73 days. According to Kirwan's incontinence score, good fecal continence was shown in 85.7% of patients (Grade 1 and 2) and none required a colostomy (Grade 4). Concerning LARS score, the results were as follows: 57.1% patients had no LARS; 19% minor LARS and 23.8% major LARS. ConclusionsRobotic total ISR for low rectal cancer is an acceptable alternative to traditional procedures. Extensive discussion with the patient about the risk of poor functional outcomes or LARS syndrome is mandatory when considering an ISR for treatment of low rectal cancer.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Comparative Study of Short-term Outcomes

Purpose: Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is a surgical option to preserve the anal sphincter for treatment of low rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ISR has been reported to be technically challenging. The Aim of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of robotic ISR compared with a laparoscopic approach. Methods: Ninety four consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (n=60) or robotic (n=34) ISR with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer from January 2011 to December 2014 were included. Patient demographics, operative data, and histopathologic and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Results: There were no differences in demographic data including tumor location, which was 2.5±0.7㎝ from the anal verge in the laparoscopic group and 2.7±0.9 ㎝ in the robotic group. Mean operation time was significantly longer in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (278±65.3 minutes versus 225±66.9, p＜0.001). With respect to histopathologic outcomes, patients with circumferential resection margin (CRM) less than 2 ㎜ were observed more frequently in the laparoscopic group than in the robotic group (18.3% versus 5.9%, p=0.050). The rate of postopeative morbidity was lower in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (14.7% versus 35.0%, p=0.035). Patients in the robotic group showed a low Clavien-Dindo score more frequently than those in the laparoscopic group (p=0.049). Conclusion: Robotic ISR is a safe and feasible procedure associated with a lower rate of narrow CRM and postoperative morbidity in spite of a longer operation time, compared with the laparoscopic approach. Prospective clinical trials with larger numbers of cases evaluating long-term oncologic and functional outcomes are required.

Multicentre study of robotic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer.

There is a lack of information regarding the oncological safety of robotic intersphincteric resection (ISR) with coloanal anastomosis. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term feasibility of robotic compared with laparoscopic ISR. Between January 2008 and May 2011, consecutive patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic ISR with coloanal anastomosis from seven institutions were included. Propensity score analyses were performed to compare outcomes for groups in a 1 : 1 case-matched cohort. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival. A total of 334 patients underwent ISR with coloanal anastomosis, of whom 212 matched patients (106 in each group) formed the cohort for analysis. The overall rate of conversion to open surgery was 0.9 per cent in the robotic ISR group and 1.9 per cent in the laparoscopic ISR group. Nine patients (8.5 per cent) in the laparoscopic group and three (2.8 per cent) in the robotic ISR group still had a stoma at last follow-up (P = 0.075). Total mean hospital costs were significantly higher for robotic ISR (€ 12,757 versus € 9223 for laparoscopic ISR; P = 0.037). Overall 3-year local recurrence rates were similar in the two groups (6.7 per cent for robotic and 5.7 per cent for laparoscopic resection; P = 0.935). The combined 3-year disease-free survival rates were 89.6 (95 per cent c.i. 84.1 to 95.9) and 90.5 (85.4 to 96.6) per cent respectively (P = 0.298). Robotic ISR with coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer has reasonable oncological outcomes, but is currently too expensive with no short-term advantages.

Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for robotic surgery

This study evaluated the feasibility of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer. Further, we attempted to analyze the learning curve for robotic surgery. A total of 64 patients were retrospectively chart-reviewed. Patients were classified into a laparoscopic procedure (n = 28) group and a robot-assisted (n = 36) group. Comparisons of age, gender, clinical staging, operating time, complications, and pathologic status were analyzed. Besides, we used a seventh-order moving average method for the construction of a learning curve in robotic surgery. Operating time was 374.3min (range, 210-570min) in the laparoscopic group and 485.8min (range, 315-720min) in the robotic group, with statistical difference between these two groups (P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (46.4%) received diverting stoma in the laparoscopic group and seven patients (19.4%) in the robotic group, with statistical difference between these two groups (P = 0.021). Operative experience of robotic ISR showed that the mean operating time was 519.5min (range, 360-720min) in the first stage and 448.2min (range, 315-585min) in the second stage, with statistical difference between these two stages (P = 0.02). Multifactorial analysis showed that protective diverting stoma creation or neorectum necrosis was not associated with age, sex, pretreatment T stage, or surgeons' experience. Our data shows that robot-assisted ISR for low rectal cancer is feasible and safe with no compromising oncological outcomes. The surgeons' experience improves operating time in robotic surgery.

Initial experience of robotic intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer

Purpose: Robotic systems (the da Vinci Surgical System) may offer considerable advantages, particularly in rectal surgery operated in the confined pelvis. This study was carried out on the assumption that a robotically naive, yet laparoscopically experienced surgeon successfully transferred to a robotic environment. We assessed immediate surgical outcomes of robotic intersphincteric resection (ISR) as an initial experience of a single surgeon. Methods: We analyzed the data of 19 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent robot ISR between January 2009 and March 2012. Its immediate surgical outcomes were compared with those of 19 patients who underwent laparoscopic ISR as a control group of the same cohort. Results: There was no significant difference in the mean operating time between robotic and laparoscopic group (261.6±57.7 minutes, 222.37±68.2 minutes, P=0.064). Mean distal resection margin was 1.5±2.2 and 1.1±0.9 in robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively (P=0.464). Three patients in each group had a circumferential margin clearance of less than 1 mm. Two patients in each group suffered from anastomotic leakeage. There were no significant differences in date of flatus passage and dietary intake, and the length of postoperative hospital stay between both groups. Conclusion: Robotic ISR is a safe and feasible procedure and its early short-term surgical outcomes are comparable to those of laparoscopic surgery.

English

English

Robotic Coloanal Anastomosis with or without Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Starting with the Perianal Approach Followed by Robotic Procedure

Background Coloanal anastomosis (CAA)/intersphincteric resection (ISR) is a promising method of sphincter-preserving surgery for very low rectal cancer. Recently, a robotic system has been attempted in CAA/ISR. By means of a robotic system, an excellent stereoscopic view may be obtained with high illumination, and adequate traction and countertraction can be easily performed in a narrow pelvis using the Endowrist function. During robotic CAA/ISR, although the robotic system is necessary to perform pelvic dissection that comes before the perianal approach, the huge robotic arms located in the low abdominal region could interfere with comfortable perianal dissection for the surgeon. Therefore, the robotic system has to be withdrawn and then set up again above the patient’s abdomen, which is time-consuming. Moreover, this process also makes it difficult to maintain the aseptic circumstance of the robotic system. To address this problem, it is necessary to change the sequence of the procedure.