Robotic Surgery For Colorectal Cancer Research Articles

Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BackgroundRobotic colorectal surgery is becoming the preferred surgical approach for colorectal cancer (CRC). It offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy that could improve patient outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery for CRC using a national cohort of patients.MethodsUsing the colectomy-targeted ACS-NSQIP database (2015–2020), colorectal procedures for malignant etiologies were identified by CPT codes for right colectomy (RC), left colectomy (LC), and low anterior resection (LAR). Optimal pair matching was performed. “Textbook outcome” was defined as the absence of 30-day complications, readmission, or mortality and a length of stay < 5 days.ResultsWe included 53,209 out of 139,759 patients screened for eligibility. Laparoscopic-to-robotic matching of 2:1 was performed for RC and LC, and 1:1 for LAR. The largest standardized mean difference was 0.048 after matching. Robotic surgery was associated with an increased rate of textbook outcomes compared to laparoscopy in RC and LC, but not in LAR (71% vs. 64% in RC, 75% vs. 68% in LC; p < 0.001). Robotic LAR was associated with increased major morbidity (7.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.012). For all three procedures, the mean conversion rate of robotic surgery was lower than laparoscopy (4.3% vs. 9.2%; p < 0.001), while the mean operative time was higher for robotic (225 min vs. 177 min; p < 0.001).ConclusionsRobotic surgery for CRC offers an advantage over conventional laparoscopy by improving textbook outcomes in RC and LC. This advantage was not found in robotic LAR, which also showed an increased risk of serious complications. The associations highlighted in our study should be considered in the discussion of the surgical management of patients with colorectal cancer.

"Feasibility of Ambulatory Robotic Colorectal Cancer Surgery: The Initial Experience of a UK Teaching Hospital"

"Feasibility of Ambulatory Robotic Colorectal Cancer Surgery: The Initial Experience of a UK Teaching Hospital"

Textbook Oncological Outcomes for Robotic Colorectal Cancer Resections: An Observational Study of Five Robotic Colorectal Units.

The quality of care of patients receiving colorectal resections has conventionally relied on individual metrics. When discussing with patients what these outcomes mean, they often find them confusing or overwhelming. Textbook oncological outcome (TOO) is a composite measure that summarises all the 'desirable' or 'ideal' postoperative clinical and oncological outcomes from both a patient's and doctor's point of view. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of TOO in patients receiving robotic colorectal cancer surgery in five robotic colorectal units and understand the risk factors associated with failure to achieve a TOO in these patients. We present a retrospective, multicentric study with data from a prospectively collected database. All consecutive patients receiving robotic colorectal cancer resections from five centres between 2013 and 2022 were included. Patient characteristics and short-term clinical and oncological data were collected. A TOO was achieved when all components were realized-no conversion to open, no complication with a Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ 3, length of hospital stay ≤ 14, no 30-day readmission, no 30-day mortality, and R0 resection. The main outcome measure was a composite measure of "ideal" practice called textbook oncological outcomes. A total of 501 patients submitted to robotic colorectal cancer resection were included. Of the 501 patients included, 388 (77.4%) achieved a TOO. Four patients were converted to open (0.8%); 55 (11%) had LOS > 14 days; 46 (9.2%) had a CD ≥ 3 complication; 30-day readmission rate was 6% (30); 30-day mortality was 0.2% (1); and 480 (95.8%) had an R0 resection. Abdominoperineal resection was a risk factor for not achieving a TOO. Robotic colorectal cancer surgery in robotic centres achieves a high TOO rate. Abdominoperineal resection is a risk factor for failure to achieve a TOO. This measure may be used in future audits and to inform patients clearly on success of treatment.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.

Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer is associated with improved outcomes. We sought to characterize possible disparities in surgical approach and outcomes. In this cross-sectional study, colorectal adenocarcinoma cases among non-Hispanic white (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and Hispanic patients were identified using the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). Logistic and Poisson regressions, generalized logit models, and Cox proportional hazards were used to assess outcomes, with reclassification of surgery type if converted to open. NHB patients were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. After multivariable analysis, NHB patients were 6% less likely, while Hispanic patients were 12% more likely to undergo a MIS approach. Lymph node retrieval was higher (> 1.3% more, p < 0.0001) and length of stay was shorter (> 17% shorter, p < 0.0001) for MIS approaches. Unplanned readmission was lower for MIS colon cancer operations compared with open operations, but not for rectal cancer. Race/ethnicity-adjusted risk of death was lower with MIS approaches for colon as well as rectal cancer. After adjusting for surgery type, risk of death was 12% lower for NHB and 35% lower for Hispanic patients compared with NHW patients. Hispanic patients had 21% lower risk of death, while NHB patients had 12% higher risk of death than NHW patients with rectal cancer, after adjusting for surgery type. Racial/ethnic disparities exist in utilization of MIS for colorectal cancer treatment, disproportionately affecting NHB patients. Since MIS has the potential to improve outcomes, suboptimal access may contribute to harmful and thus unacceptable disparities in survivorship.

Insurance Disparities in Access to Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer.

The use of the robotic approach is increasing for colorectal cancer operations, but the added cost of the platform has the potential to introduce challenges in its dissemination. We hypothesized that adoption of the robot is introducing new disparities in access to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer, especially across patient insurance groups. This cross-sectional study analyzed surgical cases of stage I-III colorectal cancer from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between 2010 and 2019. The primary outcome was surgical approach (robotic, laparoscopic, or the composite "MIS"). The predictor was a patient's primary payor. Potential confounders included sociodemographics, tumor characteristics, and the facility. Hierarchical multivariable models were generated, and sensitivity analyses were performed. For colorectal cancer operations, the MIS approach increased from 39% in 2010 to 73% in 2019, driven predominantly by an increase in the robotic approach from 2 to 24%. For laparoscopy, the size of the disparity between patients with Private insurance and Medicaid shrank from 11% (2010) to 4% (2019), whereas this disparity increased for the robotic approach from 1% (2010) to 5% (2019). On adjusted analysis, patients with Medicaid (odds ratio [OR] 0.86 [CI 0.79-0.95]) and the Uninsured (OR 0.67 [CI 0.56-0.79]) had lower odds of receiving a robotic operation than those with Private insurance in 2019. This disparity remained consistent across five sensitivity analyses. As the field of colorectal cancer surgery shifts away from laparoscopy and toward robotics, new inequities across patient insurance are emerging. Proactive efforts are needed to ensure all patients benefit from a minimally invasive approach.

Evidence of Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

Evidence of Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

Robotic colorectal cancer surgery in the elderly - A monocentric analysis of short-term postoperative outcomes in patients ≥ 75 years versus &lt;75 years

Robotic colorectal cancer surgery in the elderly - A monocentric analysis of short-term postoperative outcomes in patients ≥ 75 years versus &lt;75 years

Perioperative Probiotics Application for Preventing Postoperative Complications in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objectives: Perioperative probiotic administration in patients who undergo gastrointestinal surgery can reduce postoperative infectious complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of probiotics on postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery. Materials and Methods: For this study, we followed the protocol published by PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021247277). We included studies on patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, or robotic colorectal cancer surgery for curative intent. We conducted a comprehensive search with online databases (trial registries and ClinicalTrials.gov), other literature sources, and conference proceedings, with no language restriction, up until 12 August 2022. We assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and conducted statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted the results based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoR) according to the GRADE approach. Results: We identified 20 published full-text studies. The use of probiotics probably results in little to no difference in perioperative mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.17, 95% CI: 0.02 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; moderate CoE) and may result in reducing the overall postoperative infectious complications (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.76; I2 = 38%; low CoE) after colorectal cancer surgery. Probiotics may result in little to no difference in probiotics-related adverse events (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; low CoE). While probiotics may result in reducing the overall postoperative complications (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.74; I2 = 8%; low CoE), it may result in little to no difference in hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD: -1.06, 95% CI: -1.64 to -0.47; I2 = 8%; low CoE) and postoperative quality of life (QOL) (MD: +5.64, 95% CI: 0.98 to 10.3; low CoE). Conclusions: Perioperative probiotic administration may reduce complications, including overall infectious complications, in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery without any additional adverse effects. In addition, probiotics may have similar effects on perioperative mortality; procedure-related complications such as anastomotic leakage, and hospital LOS; or improve the QOL. Thus, probiotics may be considered a beneficial supplement to routine perioperative care for colorectal cancer surgery.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer

Background: Robotic surgical systems were created partly to solve several constraints of laparoscopic surgery and to offer technical advantages. With a substantial body of evidence demonstrating its efficacy in rectal cancer treatment, robotic surgery will soon become another conventional treatment. However, further investigations and randomized trials focusing on primary endpoints are necessary to establish some advantages of robot-assisted colon surgery.Current Concepts: Da Vinci Single-Site and SP platforms (Intuitive Surgical Inc.) were developed to overcome the shortcomings of single-port laparoscopic surgery. Despite the currently insufficient evidence, it seems that the SP platform addresses several limitations of single-port transabdominal or transanal surgery. Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery and total mesorectal excision were developed to overcome conventional platforms’ limitations, using wristed instrumentation to enhance dexterity and ergonomics. Studies on the effectiveness and viability of this novel approach are ongoing. The near-infrared fluorescence technique, real-time stereotactic navigation technology, and other surgical data platforms based on artificial intelligence incorporated into the robotic system will play an important role in improving outcomes.Discussion and Conclusion: Robotic systems for advanced colorectal cancer offer technical advantages for complex and precise surgeries. If robotic surgery costs are reduced by expanding its indications and enhancing competition among different robotic platforms, it will provide clinical benefits to more patients and reduce social healthcare costs.

TU4.2 Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: a single-center experience

AimTo present our learning-curve data for patients that underwent robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RCRS) at a large NE London DGH.MethodsWe report our data from 50 initial colorectal cancer resections, performed by two surgeons. We report the gender, age, histopathology, surgery performed, surgical time, conversion, post-operative complications, and hospital stay.ResultsThe first 50 patients who underwent RCRS between February 2020 and December 2021 for malignancy were included. Twenty-one were right hemicolectomies, 16 high anterior resection, 6 extended right hemicolectomies, 4 low anterior resections (including a planned robotic boari flap in 1 case by a trained urologist), 3 abdominoperineal excisions of rectum. The male to female ratio was 1:1 and the mean age was 65 (range: 22–85) years. The ASA class distribution was 4% ASA I, 64% ASA II, 32% ASA III.The median surgical time was 263 minutes (120–620) with median console time 136 minutes (50–540), the median hospital stay 5 days (range: 2–35) and a conversion rate of 6% (3/50 patients). The most common post-operative complications were ileus 4% (4/50), wound infection 6% (3/50), anastomotic leak 6% (3/50), and abscess formation 2% (1/50). 1 mortality occurred in a patient with an operated leak who contracted COVID-19. All patients underwent confirmed R0 resections with a negative CRM.ConclusionWe report our first 50 robotic cases for colorectal malignancy, showing that robotic-assisted surgery can be performed with low rates of conversion 3 cases (6%) and low rates of post-operative complications despite a challenging patient demographic and a sharp learning curve.

Comparison of Non-Oncological Postoperative Outcomes Following Robotic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection for Colorectal Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resection for colorectal malignancy. We performed a systematic review using a comprehensive search strategy on several electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline, and Google Scholar) in April 2022. Postoperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were compared using 12 end points. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and nonrandomized clinical trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer were included. The statistical analysis was performed using the risk ratio (RR) for categorical variables and the standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. Sixteen studies involving 2,318 patients were included. The difference in length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with robotic access (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = -0.19, -0.01, P = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Regarding intra-abdominal abscesses, the analysis showed an advantage in favor of the robotic group, but the result was not statically significant (RR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.28, 1.05, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). Mechanical obstruction was found to be higher in robotic group, favoring laparoscopic access, but was not significant (RR = 1.91, 95% CI = 0.95, 3.83, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in time to pass flatus and consume a soft diet. The rates of anastomotic leakage, ileus, wound infection, readmission, mortality, and incisional hernias were similar with both approaches. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a shorter hospital stay, with no differences in mortality and postoperative morbidity.

Comparison of robotic reduced-port and laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer surgery

Background/objectiveThe reduced-port approach can overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery while maintaining its advantages. Here, we compared the effects of robotic reduced-port surgery and conventional laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer. MethodsBetween January 2015 and December 2016, the clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes of 17 patients undergoing robotic reduced-port surgery and 49 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer were compared. ResultsThe two groups were comparable in almost all outcome measures except for the distal resection margin, which was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.001). The between-group differences in reoperation, incisional hernia development, and overall and progression-free survival were nonsignificant; however, the total hospital cost was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (US$13779.6 ± US$3114.8 vs. US$8556.3 ± US$2056.7, P < 0.001). ConclusionRobotic reduced-port surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer is safe and effective but more expensive with no additional benefit compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This observation warrants further evaluation.

Robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures for colorectal cancer.

The study aims to investigate perioperative indices and immediate outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgical interventions in colorectal cancer patients. The study included 163 patients [90 (55.2%) females and 73 (44.8%) males, aged 67.46 ± 6.72years, on average] who had surgery for morphologically checked colorectal cancer. Of those, 101 patients had laparoscopic surgery (Group 1), and 62 patients had robot-assisted surgery (Group 2). The study found that the safety profile of both robot and laparoscopic procedures for colorectal cancer is comparable. The total complication rate in the laparoscopic group was 6.9% (in 7 patients), in the robot-assisted group-11.3% (in 7 patients) (χ2 = 0.93, p = 0.34). Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer is a promising direction for improving patients' level and quality of care with this oncological pathology.

Current status of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: A review

Current status of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: A review

The role of telemedicine in the postoperative home monitoring after robotic colo-rectal cancer surgery: a preliminary single center experience.

The telemedicine studies, takes care and prevents diseases at distance basing on the interaction among physicians and patients remotely. Few data are available on its application to early postoperative after surgery. The endpoints of our preliminary experience were the detection, as primary, of feasibility and safety of home telemonitoring after robotic colo-rectal resection and, as secondary, perception and satisfaction of the patients. From December 2019 to March 2020, at the Division of Robotic Surgery of San Giovanni Hospital of Rome, 20 of 29 colorectal cancer patients, submitted to Robotic resection, were prospectively included in a program of postoperative home telemonitoring. Telemonitoring was considered feasible if at least 75% of data were available and safe if morbidity ≤ II by Clavien-Dindo classification. Perception and patients' satisfaction were evaluated through a dedicated questionnaire. Out of 20 patients, the median age was 68 years, overall postoperative morbidity was 30%, all events classified Clavien-Dindo Grade I or II. Only 2 patients were corresponded to surgical consult without readmission during home telemonitoring. Compliance of patients was > 80%, overall grade of satisfaction was very high: 4.2 as median (range 0-5). In this preliminary study, the procedures of postoperative home telemonitoring were feasible and safe and high rate of patients' satisfaction was observed. The telemedicine could enhance the role of robotic technique in decrease the hospital stay and improving postoperative recovery after surgery. Further structured prospective trial are needed to validate the routine application of telemedicine in healthcare.

Minimal access rectal cancer surgery: an observational study of patient outcomes from a district general hospital with over a decade of experience with robotic rectal cancer surgery.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer has become established more slowly than in other specialities. The aim of this study was to assess the risks and benefits of the use of robotic rectal cancer surgery in comparison with laparoscopic surgery within the confines of a subspecialist rectal cancer service in a district general hospital. Outcomes from consecutive patients undergoing minimal access rectal cancer surgery between July 2008 and January 2020 were analysed. Comparisons were made between short-term outcomes including conversion rates, anastomotic leakage and pathological outcomes as well as long-term survival and cancer recurrence. A total of 337 patients were included in the analysis, 204 (60.5%) of whom underwent robotic surgery. Demographic characteristics and use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were similar between groups. However, patients having robotic surgery had significantly lower tumours than in the laparoscopic group (7.6cm vs. 9.8cm, p=0.003). Conversion to open surgery in the robotic group was significantly less likely (9.8% vs. 22.6%, p=0.001). Operative mortality, clinical leakage and major complications were similar between groups. While asymptomatic 'radiological' leaks were significantly more common following robotic surgery (13.7% vs. 5.3%, p=0.017) this did not affect the long-term stoma closure rate. Pathological outcomes were similar with the exception of shorter mean distal resection margins (25.9mm vs. 32.8mm, p=0.001) for the robotic group of patients. There was no statistical difference in 5-year survival between groups (78.7% robotic vs. 85.4% laparoscopic, p=0.263) nor local recurrence (2.0% robotic vs. 3.8% laparoscopic, p=0.253). These results illustrate how the selective use of robotic surgery by a dedicated rectal cancer team can achieve low rates of cancer recurrence and low permanent stoma rates.

Robotic Colorectal Cancer Surgery. How to Reach Expertise? A Single Surgeon-Experience.

The complexity associated with laparoscopic colorectal surgery requires several skills to overcome the technical difficulties related to this procedure. To overcome the technical challenges of laparoscopic surgery, a robotic approach has been introduced. Our study reports the surgical outcomes obtained by the transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in colorectal cancer surgery to establish in which type of approach the proficiency is easier to reach. Data about the first consecutive 15 laparoscopic and the first 15 consecutive robotic cases are extracted, adopting as a comparator of proficiency the last 15 laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer. The variables studied are operative time, number of harvested nodes, conversion rate, postoperative complications, recovery outcomes. Our analysis includes 15 patients per group. Our results show that operative time is significantly longer in the first 15 laparoscopic cases (p = 0.001). A significantly lower number of harvested nodes was retrieved in the first 15 laparoscopic cases (p = 0.003). Clavien Dindo I complication rate was higher in the first laparoscopic group, but without a significant difference among the three groups (p = 0.09). Our results show that the surgeon needed no apparent learning curve to reach their laparoscopic standards. However, further multicentric prospective studies are needed to confirm this conclusion.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a case-control study.

BackgroundRobotic resections represent a novel approach to treatment of colorectal cancer. The aim of our study was to critically assess the implementation of robotic colorectal surgical program at our institution and to compare it to the established laparoscopically assisted surgery.Patients and methodsA retrospective case-control study was designed to compare outcomes of consecutively operated patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic colorectal resections at a tertiary academic centre from 2019 to 2020. The associations between patient characteristics, type of operation, operation duration, conversions, duration of hospitalization, complications and number of harvested lymph nodes were assessed by using univariate logistic regression analysis.ResultsA total of 83 operations met inclusion criteria, 46 robotic and 37 laparoscopic resections, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding the patient and operative characteristics. The operative time was longer in the robotic group (p < 0.001), with fewer conversions to open surgery (p = 0.004), with less patients in need of transfusions (p = 0.004) and lower reoperation rate (p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between the length of stay (p = 0.17), the number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.24) and the overall complications (p = 0.58).ConclusionsThe short-term results of robotic colorectal resections were comparable to the laparoscopically assisted operations with fewer conversions to open surgery, fewer blood transfusions and lower reoperation rate in the robotic group.

Improved perioperative outcomes and reduced inflammatory stress response in malignant robot-assisted colorectal resections: a retrospective cohort study of 298 patients

BackgroundRobot-assisted surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of colorectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for adopting this technique is still limited. This study’s main objective was to compare short-term complication rates, oncological outcomes, and the inflammatory stress response after colorectal resection for cancer performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the robot-assisted approach to laparoscopic surgery for elective malignant colorectal neoplasm. Certified colorectal and da Vinci ® robotic surgeons performed resections at a Danish tertiary colorectal high volume center from May 2017 to March 2019. We analyzed the two surgical groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses to detect differences in intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and the inflammatory stress response.ResultsTwo hundred and ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Significant differences favoring robot-assisted surgery was demonstrated for; length of hospital stay (4 days, interquartile range (4, 5) versus 5 days, interquartile range (4–7), p < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss (50 mL, interquartile range (20–100) versus 100 mL, interquartile range (50–150), p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. The inflammatory stress response was significantly higher after laparoscopic compared to robot-assisted surgery reflected by an increase in C-reactive protein concentration (exponentiated coefficient = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (1.06–1.46), p = 0.008). No differences between the two groups were found concerning mortality, microradical resection rate, conversion to open surgery, and surgical or medical short-term complication rates.ConclusionRobot-assisted surgery is feasible and can be safely implemented for colorectal resections. The robot-assisted approach, when compared to laparoscopic surgery, was associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes. Extensive prospective studies are needed to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in the Octogenarians.

We evaluated the short-term outcomes of robotic colorectal cancer surgery in octogenarian patients, focussing on postoperative morbidity and survival. All patients ≥80years in a prospective colorectal cancer database undergoing robotic curative colorectal cancer resection were included. Patient demographics, intraoperative findings, postoperative and oncological outcomes were recorded. Patients were further subdivided into two groups named: old (OG80-85years) and very old (VOG≥86years). Fifty-eight consecutive patients were included (median age, 83years; male, 53.4%; median BMI, 26.5). Median total operative time was 230min, median blood loss 20ml, median length of stay 7days. Major complications were seen in 12% of patients; and the 90-day mortality rate was 1.7%. Complete R0 resection achieved in 93% of cases, average lymph node harvest was 22. Overall and disease-free survival was 81% and 87.3%, respectively (median follow-up 24.5months). We noticed a trend towards more advanced lesion staging in the VOG, but only N2 stage was significant (p=0.03). There was a statistically significant difference in overall survival in favour of the OG (p=0.024). Robotic surgery is feasible in octogenarian patients undergoing curative colorectal cancer resection and is associated with good post-operative outcomes and overall survival.