Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery Research Articles

Minimally invasive versus open multivisceral resection for rectal cancer clinically invading adjacent organs: a propensity score-matched analysis

BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS), such as laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal cancer, is performed worldwide. However, limited information is available on the advantages of MIS over open surgery for multivisceral resection for cases clinically invading adjacent organs.Patients and methodsThis was a retrospective propensity score-matching study of consecutive clinical T4b rectal cancer patients who underwent curative intent surgery between 2006 and 2021 at the University of Tokyo Hospital.ResultsSixty-nine patients who underwent multivisceral resection were analyzed. Thirty-three patients underwent MIS (the MIS group), while 36 underwent open surgery (the open group). Twenty-three patients were matched to each group. Conversion was required in 2 patients who underwent MIS (8.7%). R0 resection was achieved in 87.0% and 91.3% of patients in the MIS and open groups, respectively. The MIS group had significantly less blood loss (170 vs. 1130 mL; p < 0.0001), fewer Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 2 postoperative complications (30.4% vs. 65.2%; p = 0.0170), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (20 vs. 26 days; p = 0.0269) than the open group. The 3-year cancer-specific survival rate, relapse-free survival rate, and cumulative incidence of local recurrence were 75.7, 35.9, and 13.9%, respectively, in the MIS group and 84.5, 45.4, and 27.1%, respectively, in the open group, which were not significantly different (p = 0.8462, 0.4344, and 0.2976, respectively).ConclusionMIS had several short-term advantages over open surgery, such as lower complication rates, faster recovery, and a shorter hospital stay, in rectal cancer patients who underwent multivisceral resection.Graphical abstract

Perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a retrospective study of 672 patients.

Although there's growing information about the long-term oncological effects of robotic surgery for rectal cancer, the procedure is still relatively new. This study aimed to assess the long-term oncological results of total mesorectal excision (TME) performed laparoscopically versus robotically in the setting of rectal cancer. Restrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. A total of 489 laparoscopic (L-TME) and 183 robotic total mesorectal excisions (R-TME) were carried out by a single surgeon between 2013 and 2023. The groups were compared in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. In the R-TME and L-TME groups, male sex predominated (75.4% and 57.3%, respectively), although the robotic group was significantly greater (p = 0.008). There was no conversion in R-TME group, whereas three (0.6%) converted to open surgery in L-TME group. The R-TME group had a statistically significant higher number of distal rectal tumors (85%) compared to the L-TME group (54.6%). Only three (1.7%) patients in the R-TME group received abdomineperineal resection (APR); in contrast, 25 (5%) patients in the L-TME group received APR (p < 0.001). For R-TME, the mean follow-up was 70.7months (range 18-138) and for L-TME, it was 60months (range 14-140). Frequency of completed mesorectum was significantly greater in R-TME group (98.9% vs 94.2%, p < 0.001). The 5year overall survival rates for R-TME and L-TME groups were 89.6% and 88.7%, respectively. The 5year disease-free survival for R-TME and L-TME groups were 84.1% and 81.1%, respectively. The local recurrences rates were 7.6% and 6.3%, respectively in R-TME and L-TME groups (p = 0.274). R-TME is characterized by no conversion and improved mesorectal integrity. R-TME had longer operation time. The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between groups.

Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excisions: A Propensity-Score Matched Cohort study of 5-year survival outcomes

Objective: To compare long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) for rectal cancer in a tertiary center. Background: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has comparable long-term outcomes to the open approach, with several advantages in short-term outcomes. However, it has significant technical limitations, which the robotic approach aims to overcome. Methods: We included patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic TME surgery between 2013 and 2021. The groups were compared after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and short-term surgical and patient-related outcomes. Results: A total of 594 patients were included, and after propensity-score matching 215 patients remained in each group. There was a significant difference in 5-year OS (72.4% for laparoscopy vs 81.7% for robotic, P = 0.029), but no difference in 5-year LR (4.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.850), DR (16.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.390), or DFS (63.9% vs 74.4%, P = 0.086). The robotic group had significantly less conversion (3.7% vs 0.5%, P = 0.046), shorter length of stay [7.0 (6.0–13.0) vs 6.0 (4.0–8.0), P &lt; 0.001), and less postoperative complications (63.5% vs 50.7%, P = 0.010). Conclusions: This study shows a correlation between higher 5-year OS and comparable long-term oncological outcomes for robotic TME surgery compared to the laparoscopic approach. Furthermore, lower conversion rates, a shorter length of stay, and a less minor postoperative complications were observed. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is a safe and favorable alternative to the traditional approaches.

Research progress of robot and laparoscope in postoperative complications of rectal cancer.

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumours worldwide, and it is also one of the major diseases that seriously threatens human life and health. At present, the main treatment for rectal cancer is still surgical treatment. The surgical methods have been rapidly developed from the previous open surgery to the current minimally invasive surgery. At present, there are two main minimally invasive surgeries: robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. Due to the particularity of rectal cancer surgery, more and more studies have shown that robotic rectal cancer surgery has more advantages than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether the incidence of postoperative complications after robotic rectal cancer surgery is lower than that after laparoscopy is not uniformly conclusive in the current study. Therefore, in this paper, we searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase and other databases, collected the latest published meta-analysis on postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer, and assessed the quality of the included meta-analysis by AMSTAR-2 evaluation tool, so as to explore the current research status and research quality of postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer. The results showed that compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic rectal cancer surgery could improve the postoperative urinary and reproductive function of male patients, but it could not be proved that robotic rectal cancer surgery could reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, urinary retention, intestinal obstruction, anastomotic bleeding, incision infection, pulmonary infection, venous thrombosis and abdominal abscess; however, the overall quality of meta-analysis of the results of each complication was low or very low. Therefore, multicenter, large-sample, high-quality prospective randomised controlled studies and high-quality meta-analysis are still needed to prove the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery in postoperative complications in the future.

Fluorescence guidance using near-infrared fluorescent clips in robotic rectal surgery: a case series

PurposeTattoo markings are often used as preoperative markers for colorectal cancer. However, scattered ink markings adversely affect tumor site recognition intraoperatively; therefore, interventions for rectal cancer may lead to an inaccurate distal resection margin (DRM) and incomplete total mesorectal excision (TME). This is the first case series of fluorescence-guided robotic rectal surgery in which near-infrared fluorescence clips (NIRFCs) were used to localize rectal cancer lesions.MethodsWe enrolled 20 consecutive patients who underwent robotic surgery for rectal cancer between December 2022 and December 2023 in the current study. The primary endpoints were the rate of intraoperative clip detection and its usefulness for marking the tumor site. Secondary endpoints were oncological assessments, including DRM and the number of lymph nodes.ResultsClip locations were confirmed in 17 of 20 (85%) patients. NIRFCs were not detected in 3 out of 7 patients who underwent preoperative chemoradiation therapy. No adverse events, including bleeding or perforation, were observed at the time of clipping, and no clips were lost. The median DRM was 55 mm (range, 22–86 mm) for rectosigmoid (Rs), 33 mm (range, 16–60 mm) for upper rectum (Ra), and 20 mm (range, 17–30 mm) for low rectum (Rb). The median number of lymph nodes was 13 (range, 10–21).ConclusionThe rate of intraoperative clip detection, oncological assessment, including DRM, and the number of lymph nodes indicate that the utility of fluorescence-guided methods with NIRFCs is feasible for rectal cancer.

Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer in patients with varied body mass indexes: evaluating of short-term outcomes.

The main aim of this study was to evaluate and contrast the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures in the treatment of low and mid rectal cancer in different BMI (body mass index) groups. The clinical records of patients who had laparoscopic or robotic proctectomy at a single center between December 2019 and August 2023 were analyzed. Then we utilized a classification framework to categorize individuals based on their BMI into three unique groups: non-obese, overweight, and obese. The short-term efficacy was evaluated. A consecutive sample of 1413 patients was included in this retrospective investigation. 1158 people out of the total sample chose laparoscopic surgery, whereas 255 people chose robotic surgery. In the group of obese people, robotic surgery showed a statistically significant decrease in blood losscompared to laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.026). People who were overweight or obese were in the hospital for a shorter amount of time after robotic surgery than after laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.033 and P = 0.031, respectively). People with different BMIs in the robotic surgery group took less time to have a flatus passage and oral intakethose in the laparoscopic surgery group. Oncological outcomes and the frequency of complicationswere comparable between the two treatments with different BMIs. Surgical resection of patients undergoing low-anterior surgery may benefit from a robotic approach, particularly in overweight and obese patients.

The impact of robotic rectal cancer surgery at a Canadian regional cancer centre: a retrospective cohort study.

Although robotic surgery has several advantages over other minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for rectal cancer surgery, the uptake in Canada has been limited owing to a perceived increase in cost and lack of training. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of access to robotic surgery in a Canadian setting. We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving consecutive adults undergoing surgical resection for rectal cancer between 2017 and 2020. The primary exposure was access to robotic surgery. Outcomes included MIS utilization, short-term outcomes, total cost of care, and quality of surgical resection. We completed univariate and multivariate analyses. We included 171 individuals in this cohort study (85 in the prerobotic period and 86 in the robotic period). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. A higher proportion of individuals underwent successful MIS in the robotic phase (86% v. 46%, p < 0.001). Other benefits included a shorter mean length of hospital stay (5.1 d v. 9.2 d, p < 0.001). The quality of surgical resection was similar between groups. The total cost of care was $16 746 in the robotic period and $18 808 in the prerobotic period (mean difference -$1262, 95% confidence interval -$4308 to $1783; p = 0.4). Access to robotic rectal cancer surgery increased successful completion of MIS and shortened hospital stay, with a similar total cost of care. Robotic rectal cancer surgery can enhance patient outcomes in the Canadian setting.

Impact of visceral fat area on short-term outcomes in robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer.

Rectal cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers that arise in the digestive tract. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the impact of visceral fat area (VFA) on postoperative outcomes in mid and low rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery (RS). Data were collected on patients who underwent robotic anterior rectal resection in a single center from December 2019 to October 2023. Clinical pathology information was analyzed. Statistical analysis was done on the computed tomography (CT) imaging data. A total of 277 patients were included in the study, including 121 cases with visceral obesity (VO) and 156 cases without VO. There was no statistically significant disparity in the lymph node dissection count, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, time to first liquid diet, early postoperative complications, histopathologic specimen indices (quality of TME and CRM involvement rate), and or the rate of conversion to open surgery between VO and non-VO group (P>0.05). Nevertheless, the group of individuals with VO experienced a lengthier duration of surgery (P<0.001) and a delayed time until the first passage of flatus (P<0.001) in comparison to the group without VO. The study suggests that VO does not significantly impact early complications or the quality of surgical outcomes in mid and low rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery. The findings support the continued use of RS as an optimal strategy for technically demanding patients.

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.

Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis.

The effect of robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy is still controversial, and a comprehensive search and analysis of the current relevant evidence is necessary. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS). Up to August 23, 2023, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) was used to calculate the effect sizes using RevMan 5.3. A total of 12 studies reporting on 11,686 participants were included. Compared with LS, RS increased the operative time (MD 35.16 min; 95% CI: 16.24, 54.07), but it did significantly reduce the risk of the conversion to open surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40, 0.53) and improved the TME incomplete rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93). Moreover, there were no difference in total postoperative complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84, 1.52), circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63, 1.27), distal margin positive (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29, 1.22), blood loss (MD -11.57 ml; 95% CI: -39.09, 15.94), length of hospital stay (MD -0.08 days; 95% CI: -1.26, 1.10), mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.21), lymph node harvested (MD 0.69.; 95% CI: -0.43, 1.82), and the time of first flatus (MD -0.47 days; 95% CI: -1.19, 0.25) between the two groups. RS was associated with superiority over LS in reducing the risk of the conversion to open surgery and improving TME incomplete rate, which suggested that RS could be an effective method for treating rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=460084, PROSPERO (CRD42023460084).

Efficiency of the Robotic Platform in Improving the Rate of Sphincter Preservation in Patients With Mid and Low Rectal Cancer.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the robotic platform can have a positive impact on the rate of sphincter preservation in patients with rectal tumors, undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), in comparison with laparoscopic or open TME. We also analyzed and compared short-term outcomes. A prospectively collected robotic database was reviewed and compared with the trust and national data. Three groups were designed according to the surgical technique: open, laparoscopic and robotic. This includes all resections for mid and low rectal cancer which were performed with the robotic platform, over a period of 4 years, versus the trust data for the same period. Two hundred ninety-seven patients with mid and low rectal cancers were analyzed. Demographics for the groups (gender, age, and body mass index) were similar but distance from anal verge was shorter in the robotic group (7 vs. 8.5 cm, P < 0.001). The percentage of abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate was significantly lower in the robotic group (13.5% vs. 39.6% vs. 52.4% for the open group, P < 0.001). Median length of stay, complication rate, and positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate for the robotic group were also statistically significantly lower than those for both laparoscopic and open groups. Robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer is safe and feasible, and could help surgeons perform ultra-low anterior resections, rather than APRs and save patients' sphincters. Positive CRM is low, which could lead to improved oncological outcomes.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in rectal cancer: a single-center short-term analysis based on the learning curve.

As a novel procedure becomes more and more used, knowledge about its learning curve and its impact on outcomes is useful for future implementations. Our aim is (i) to identify the phases of the robotic rectal surgery learning process and assess the safety and oncological outcomes during that period, (ii) to compare the robotic rectal surgery learning phases outcomes with laparoscopic rectal resections performed before the implementation of the robotic surgery program. We performed a retrospective study, based on a prospectively maintained database, with methodological quality assessment by STROBE checklist. All the procedures were performed by the same two surgeons. A total of 157 robotic rectal resections from June 2018 to January 2022 and 97 laparoscopic rectal resections from January 2018 to July 2019 were included. The learning phase was completed at case 26 for surgeon A, 36 for surgeon B, and 60 for the center (both A & B). There were no differences in histopathological results or postoperative complications between phases, achieving the same ratio of mesorectal quality, circumferential and distal resection margins as the laparoscopic approach. A transitory increase of major complications and anastomotic leakage could occur once overcoming the learning phase, secondary to the progressive complexity of cases. Robotic rectal cancer surgery learning curve phases in experienced laparoscopic surgeons was completed after 25-35 cases. Implementation of a robotic rectal surgery program is safe in oncologic terms, morbidity, mortality and length of stay.

Totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer with the daVinci® single-port platform.

Totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer with the daVinci® single-port platform.

Surgery for Rectal Cancer With Mixed Reality of 3D Model During Operation: A Case Report.

Recently, robotic surgery for rectal cancer has become a common minimally invasive surgery. In addition, the technology of augmented and mixed reality is applied in various living environments, including medicine. We successfully performed robotic surgery for rectal cancer with three-dimensional (3D) images as mixed reality (MR) using HoloLens2. The patient was diagnosed with rectal cancer by colonoscopy and a positron-emission computed-tomography scan, and we performed robot-assisted anterior resection. The operator used HoloLens2 and performed the surgery while visualizing 3D images of pelvic anatomy with the location of the rectal cancer as hologram. The operation was performed completely and safely, and she was discharged 11 days after surgery with no postoperative complications. This case presents the usefulness of a MR system offering organ visualization as hologram during surgery.

Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Scarce research has reported the comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in mid-low rectal cancer. Therefore, this meta-analysis is aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two surgical approaches. A comprehensive search of the databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was performed for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The outcomes of interest acquired from eight articles included three aspects: intraoperative conditions, postoperative status of patients, and complications. All data (robotic = 1350 patients, laparoscopic = 1330 patients) enrolled were analyzed using Rev Man 5.4. Compared to the laparoscopic group, the robotic group indicated a noticeable superiority in estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), number of lymph nodes dissected (P = 0.004), time to first flatus (P = 0.001), time to first fluid diet (P = 0.001), hospital stay (P < 0.0001), conversion (P = 0.009), and urinary retention (P = 0.0006), but devoted much more operation time (P = 0.0004). Robotic surgery was associated with superiority over laparoscopic surgery in increasing surgical safety, accelerating postoperative recovery, and reducing complications, which suggested that robotic surgery could be a safe and effective method for treating mid-low rectal cancer.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis.

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer. Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at five hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes. A total of 292 patients (187 male; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinicopathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8min, p = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.

Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for low rectal cancer combined with transanal total mesorectal excision

PurposeLaparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer is often challenging. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and robotic surgery have been introduced to overcome the technical difficulties in laparoscopic surgery and achieve more favorable outcomes. Hybrid robotic surgery, which combines TaTME with the abdominal robotic approach, incorporates the advantages of each of these surgical techniques and might achieve less invasive and safer surgery. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of hybrid robotic surgery with TaTME (hybrid TaTME).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 162 TaTME cases performed at our department from September 2016 to May 2022. Among them, 92 cases of conventional TaTME and 30 of hybrid TaTME were eligible. We used propensity score matching analysis (PSM) to adjust for patients’ characteristics and compared the short-term outcomes of the two treatment groups.ResultsTwenty-seven cases in each group were extracted using PSM. The operation time in hybrid TaTME was comparable to that in conventional TaTME. There was no significant difference in the postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. Other intra- and post-operative outcomes were also comparable between the two groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the curative resection and recurrence rates.ConclusionHybrid TaTME for low rectal cancer was as favorable as conventional TaTME in producing satisfactory short-term outcomes. However, furthermore, larger-scale studies conducted over longer study periods are needed to evaluate the validity of the findings.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis.

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer. Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at 5 hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes. A total of 292 patients (187 males; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinical-pathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8 minutes, p=0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p< 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.