Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision Research Articles

Robotic, transanal, and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for locally advanced mid/low rectal cancer: European multicentre, propensity score-matched study.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgery for low/mid locally advanced rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare three minimally invasive surgical approaches for TME with primary anastomosis (laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, and transanal TME). Records of patients undergoing laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, or transanal TME between 2013 and 2022 according to standardized techniques in expert centres contributing to the European MRI and Rectal Cancer Surgery III (EuMaRCS-III) database were analysed. Propensity score matching was applied to compare the three groups with respect to the complication rate (primary outcome), conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and survival. A total of 468 patients (mean(s.d.) age of 64.1(11) years) were included; 190 (40.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic TME, 141 (30.1%) patients underwent robotic TME, and 137 (29.3%) patients underwent transanal TME. Comparative analyses after propensity score matching demonstrated a higher rate of postoperative complications for laparoscopic TME compared with both robotic TME (OR 1.80, 95% c.i. 1.11-2.91) and transanal TME (OR 2.87, 95% c.i. 1.72-4.80). Robotic TME was associated with a lower rate of grade A anastomotic leakage (2%) compared with both laparoscopic TME (8.8%) and transanal TME (8.1%) (P = 0.031). Robotic TME (1.4%) and transanal TME (0.7%) were both associated with a lower conversion rate to open surgery compared with laparoscopic TME (8.8%) (P < 0.001). Time to flatus and duration of hospital stay were shorter for patients treated with transanal TME (P = 0.003 and 0.001 respectively). There were no differences in operating time, intraoperative complications, blood loss, mortality, readmission, R0 resection, or survival. In this multicentre, retrospective, propensity score-matched, cohort study of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, newer minimally invasive approaches (robotic TME and transanal TME) demonstrated improved outcomes compared with laparoscopic TME.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres.

The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres. All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan. Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024. Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

A Method for Continuous Surgeon Improvement in Rectal Cancer: Risk-Adjusted Cumulative Sum.

To develop and analyze a risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) chart as a potential method to monitor individual surgeon performance in robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Currently, surgeons lack real-time tools to monitor and enhance their performance beyond residency completion. While national quality programs exist, granular, individual-level data is crucial for continuous improvement. Previous studies suggest CUSUM charts hold promise in identifying performance trends and outliers. This retrospective study analyzed data from 640 robotic TME cases performed by 12 surgeons at two institutions. RA-CUSUM charts were generated for three outcomes: complications, operative time, and length of stay. The overall RA-CUSUM curves for operative time and complications showed an initial learning phase followed by a plateau or downward slope, indicating proficiency or improvement. However, individual surgeon curves revealed significant heterogeneity. Three surgeons consistently excelled in operative time, while five minimized complications most effectively. Potential quality improvement could be implemented to drive performance toward positive outliers. No differences were found in unadjusted outcomes, including conversion, number of lymph nodes harvested, and positive circumferential margins. The RA-CUSUM chart is a promising method for identifying individual surgeon performance in robotic TME. It could help surgeons, teams, and leaders identify improvement areas and benchmark themselves against positive outliers. Further studies are needed to explore the potential of RA-CUSUM for implementing interventions to improve surgical quality.

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.

First worldwide report on rectal resections with Hugo™ surgical system: description of docking angles and tips for an effective setup.

Rectal robotic surgery gained momentum in the last decade, but it is still associated with not-negligible costs. In order to reduce costs, recently different robotic systems have received approval for clinical use. This study aims to present the first case series of rectal resection with the novel cost-effective platform Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) Hugo™. Tips for effective set up of the system and detailed configuration of tilt and docking angles are also provided. Three cases of rectal resection with Hugo RAS™ system are reported. After the first two cases of resection with partial mesorectal excision in which surgeries were performed with the setup proposed by the vendor company, in the third case we tested a novel setup that allowed a full robotic low rectal resection performing vascular ligations, TME and colonic splenic flexure mobilization without the need of any de-docking. Our first three robotic rectal resections with the Hugo RAS™ system were completed without complications with a median docking time of 12 min (range 8-15) and a median console time of 345 minutes (range 271-475). In the first two cases, hybrid robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were performed to obtain an adequate haemostasis and traction during the pelvic phase. In the third case, a full robotic TME was successfully accomplished. Our experience demonstrates that a full robotic low rectal resection with TME with Hugo™ RAS system is feasible, safe and associated with satisfactory postoperative outcomes.

Is survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was developed to provide better vision during resection of the mesorectum. Conflicting results have shown an increase in local recurrence and shorter survival after taTME. This study compared the outcomes of taTME and abdominal (open, laparoscopic, robotic) total mesorectal excision (abTME). Patients who underwent taTME or abTME for stages I-III rectal cancer and who received an anastomosis were included. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively conducted database was performed. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Risk factors were adjusted by propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rates and combined poor pathological outcomes. From 2012 to 2020, a total of 189 patients underwent taTME, and 119 underwent abTME; patients were followed up for a mean of 54.7 (SD 24.2) and 78.4 (SD 34.8) months, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates after taTME and abTME were not significantly different after PSM: OS: 78.2% vs. 88.6% (p = 0.073), CSS: 87.4% vs. 92.1% (p = 0.359), and DFS: 69.3% vs. 80.9% (p = 0.104), respectively. No difference in the local recurrence rate was observed (taTME, n = 10 (5.3%); abTME, n = 10 (8.4%); p = 0.280). Combined poor pathological outcomes were more frequent after abTME (n = 36, 34.3%) than after taTME (n = 35, 19.6%) (p = 0.006); this difference was nonsignificant according to multivariate analysis (p = 0.404). taTME seems to be a good treatment option for patients with rectal cancer and is unlikely to significantly affect local recurrence or survival. However, further investigations concerning the latter are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0496910).

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Delayed Coloanal Anastomosis (TaTME-DCAA) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision (RTME) for Low Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Short-term Outcomes, Bowel Function, and Cost.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is surgical option for low rectal cancer, replacing conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with bowel diversion. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) with DCAA versus laparoscopic TME (LTME) with ICAA versus robotic TME (RTME) with ICAA. This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent elective TaTME-DCAA between November 2021 and June 2022. Patients were propensity-score matched in a ratio of 1:3 to patients who underwent LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome measures were histopathologic results, postoperative morbidity, function, and inpatient costs. Twelve patients in the TaTME-DCAA group were compared with 36 patients in the LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA groups each after propensity score matching. Histopathologic results and postoperative morbidity rates were statistically similar. Overall stoma-related complication rates in the ICAA groups were 11%. Median total length of hospital stays for TME plus stoma reversal surgery was similar across all techniques (10 vs. 10 vs. 9 days; P=0.532). Despite a significantly shorter duration of follow-up, bowel function after TaTME-DCAA was comparable to that of LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA. Overall median inpatient costs of TaTME-DCAA were comparable to LTME-ICAA and significantly cheaper than RTME-ICAA ($31,087 vs. $29,927 vs. $36,750; P=0.002). TaTME with DCAA is a feasible and safe technique compared with other minimally invasive methods of TME, while avoiding bowel diversion and stoma-related complications, as well as comparing favorably in terms of overall hospitalization costs.

Impact of robotic total mesorectal excision upon pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 836 cases.

The aim of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the impact of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) on pathology metrics in Male Overweight patients with Low rectal cancer (MOL). This was a multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of data. Two groups were defined: MOL (Male, Overweight, Low rectal cancer) and non-MOL. Overweight was defined as BMI ≥ 25kg/m2. Low rectal cancer was defined as cancer within 6cm from the anal verge. The primary endpoints of this study were histopathological metrics, namely circumferential resection margin (CRM) (mm), CRM involvement rate (%), and the quality of TME. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved if < 1mm. 836 (106 MOL and 730 non-MOL) patients that underwent robotic TME by six surgeons over 3years were compared. No significant differences in demographics and perioperative variables were found, except for operating time, distal margin, and number of lymph nodes harvested. CRM involvement rate did not significantly differ (7.5% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.395). Mean CRM was statistically significantly narrower in MOL patients (6.6 vs. 7.7mm, p = 0.04). Quality of TME did not differ. Distance of tumor from the anal verge was the only independent predictor of CRM involvement. Robotic TME may provide optimal pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer. Although CRM was a few millimeters narrower in MOL, the values were within the range of uninvolved margins making the difference statistically significant, but not clinically. Being MOL was not a risk factor for involvement of circumferential resection margin.

Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer: A Feasibility Study from a European Centre.

The role of robotic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) for lateral pelvic nodal disease (LPND) in rectal cancer has yet to be investigated in the Western hemisphere. This study aims to investigate the safety and feasibility of robotic LPLND by utilising a well-established totally robotic TME protocol. We conducted a retrospective study on 17 consecutive patients who underwent robotic LPLND for LPND ± TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2021. A single docking totally robotic approach from the left hip with full splenic mobilisation was performed using the X/Xi da Vinci platform. All patients underwent a tri-compartmental robotic en bloc excision of LPND with preservation of the obturator nerve and pelvic nerve plexus, leaving a well-skeletonised internal iliac vessel and its branches. The median operative time was 280 min, which was 40 min longer than our standard robotic TME. The median BMI was 26, and there were no conversions. The median inpatient stay was 7 days with no Clavien-Dindo > 3 complications. One patient (6%) developed local recurrence and metastatic disease within 5 months. The proportion of histologically confirmed LPND was 41%, of which 94% were well to moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. Median pre-operative lateral pelvic node size was significantly higher in positive nodes (14 mm vs. 8 mm (p = 0.01)). All patients had clear resection margins on histology. Robotic LPLND is safe and feasible with good peri-operative and short-term outcomes, with the ergonomic advantages of a robotic TME docking protocol readily transferrable in LPLND.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-port versus multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BackgroundIt is unknown whether the da Vinci single-port system performs similarly to the previous multi-port system during complicated procedures, such as rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of single-port and multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. MethodsThis retrospective study reviewed 128 patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision between July 2020 and June 2022, of whom 84 (42 each: single-port versus multi-port) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared between groups. ResultsMedian tumor height was similar between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 5.9 ± 2.1 vs 5.6 ± 1.8 cm, P = .719). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed equally. The total operative time was less (160.0 ± 42.2 minutes vs 199.6 ± 78.6 minutes, P = .005), the total length of incision was shorter (4.0 ±0.3 vs 5.4 ± 0.7 cm, P = .003), postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2 ±1.7 vs 7.2 ±2.8 days, P = .050), and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 trended to be lower (7.3 ± 4.7 vs 8.9 ± 5.6 mg/L, P = .096) in the single-port group, compared with the multi-port group. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 11.9% vs 16.6%, P = .864). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the single-port and multi-port groups, respectively. The circumferential resection margins were positive in 1 patient in the multi-port group. ConclusionThe perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic total mesorectal excision were comparable to those of multi-port robotic TME. The single-port robot can be considered a surgical option for treating rectal cancer.

Does robotic TME bring difference in lymph node yield and quality of TME?

Oncological outcomes of the robotic low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) are still under discussion. Few studies have proven that robotic TME (rTME) is a safe and equivalent method for treatment of rectal carcinoma. But there is almost no comparison between the rTME and conventional TME in terms of the number of lymph nodes obtained and the quality of the TME. A single institution retrospective study was designed in a cohort of 261 patients. Cohort was divided into two groups depending on the type of surgery (rTME versus TME) and within these two groups, patients were divided according to whether they underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCHRT) or did not. The primary objective of the study was to compare obtained number of the lymph nodes in specimen. Secondary objectives were comparison of the quality of the TME and the number of positive circumferential resection margins. Results of the study have shown no significant difference in number of the lymph nodes obtained by the rTME and TME. There was no difference in the quality of the TME, neither in the group with the previous nCHRT nor in the group without a nCHRT. With results from the study we consider the rTME to be non-inferior to the conventional TME. Therefore, at least identical oncological results can be expected in patients treated by the rTME.

SP5.5 Peri-operative, Oncological and Functional Outcomes of Robotic versus Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision in patients with Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract Background To evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (RTME) and spinal Trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in patients with low rectal cancer. Methods A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing RTME versus TaTME for low rectal cancer were included. Primary outcomes were post-operative complications namely, anastomosis leak, SSI, overall complications rate, and Clavien-Dindo complications rate. Operative time, conversion to open, Intra-operative blood loss, ITU and hospital length of stay (LOS), post-operative complications, oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes were the evaluated outcome parameters. Results Twelve studies with a total number of 3025 patients divided between the Robotic group (n=1881) and TaTME group (n=1144) were included. There was a significant difference between the two groups regarding Operative time (P=0.39), conversion to open (P=0.29) and intra-operative blood loss (P= 0.62). Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications rate (P=0.25), anastomosis leak (P= 0.89), re-operation (P=0.62), re-admission rate (P=0.92), R0 resection (P= 0.52), ITU LOS (P= 0.63) and total LOS (P=0.30) showed similar results between the two groups. RTME group showed a higher rate of harvested lymph nodes (P= 0.04) and completed TME (P=0.05). Wexner and LARS scores showed significantly better functional results in the RTME group compared to the TaTME group (P= 0.0009) and (P= 0.00001), respectively. Conclusion Compared to TaTME, RTME provides significantly better functional outcomes, a higher number of harvested lymph and complete TME with a similar postoperative complications rate.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: A Narrative Review and Description of the Technique.

Robotic surgery may offer significant advantages for treating extraperitoneal rectal cancer. Although laparoscopy has been shown to be safe and effective, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging and is still performed in selected centers. Robotic anterior resection (RAR) may overcome the drawback of conventional laparoscopy, providing high-quality surgery with favorable oncological outcomes. Moreover, recent data show how RAR offers clinical and oncological benefits when affording difficult TMEs, such as low and advanced rectal tumors, in terms of complication rate, specimen quality, recurrence rate, and survival. This series aims to review the most recent and relevant literature, reporting mid- and long-term oncological outcomes and focusing on minimally invasive RAR for low rectal cancer.

Surgical Outcomes, Long-Term Recurrence Rate and Resource Utilization in a Prospective Cohort of 165 Patients Treated by Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Distal Rectal Cancer

Abstract Background Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is an alternative to laparoscopic and robotic TME owing to its reported superior ability to achieve clear margins in distal rectal cancers. Worrisome reports of high recurrence and complication rates triggered a moratorium in few countries. Aims This study assessed outcomes and resource utilization of taTME in a teaching hospital. Methods Patients with distal rectal cancer treated by taTME were prospectively included following ethical clearance and informed consent. Outcomes were reported as median &amp; interquartile range (IQR). Results Audited yearly volume for TME was 43 (IQR 37-52). Consecutive 165 patients (67% male, 33% female) with a tumor 7cm (IQR 5-10) from the anal verge and a BMI of 26 (23-29) were followed for 50 months (IQR 32-79). Resection margins were threatened in 25% of the patients in preoperative MRI and 75% received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Surgery lasted 348 min (293-425) and one conversion occurred (0.6%). Length of stay was 9 days (7-13). Good mesorectal dissection and clear margins were achieved in 96% of the specimen and 27 lymphnodes (IQR 20-38) were harvested. Ninety-day major morbidity affected 36 patients (21.8%), including 12 anastomotic leakages (7.2%). All leaks could be salvaged and ileostomy reversed within 6 months but for 2 patients who died (1.2%). Recurrence occurred locally in 9 patients (5.4%) and 44 had distant metastasis (26.7%). Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 67% and 90%. In multivariate analysis, long operation and frailty predicted anastomotic leak, while positive distal margin and lymphnodes predicted local recurrence and distant metastasis. A 2-team taTME saved 102 minutes operative time (422 (353-492) vs 320 (276-373) min. p&amp;lt;0.001) and EUR 1’385 when compared to a one-team approach, while allowing improved teaching opportunities. Conclusions Transanal total mesorectal excision allowed sound surgical quality and excellent oncologic outcomes in a Swiss teaching hospital.

Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Could Harvest More Lateral Pelvic Lymph Nodes over Laparoscopic Approach for Mid-to-Low Rectal Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study.

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a technically demanding procedure. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic LPNDs. This multi-institutional retrospective study included 108 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic total mesorectal excision with LPND for locally advanced rectal cancer. There were 74 patients in the laparoscopic and 34 in the robotic groups. The median operation time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (353 vs. 275 min, p < 0.001). No patients underwent conversion to open surgery in either group. Pathological LPN metastases were observed in 24 and 8 patients in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.347). Although the number of harvested mesorectal lymph nodes was similar (15.5 vs. 15.0, p = 0.968), the number of harvested LPNs was higher in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (7.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.004). Postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were similar (robotic vs. laparoscopic, 35.3% and 7 days vs. 37.8% and 7 days, respectively). Both laparoscopic and robotic LPND are safe and feasible for locally advanced rectal cancers, but robotic LPND showed more harvested lateral lymph node than laparoscopic LPND.

Integrating a tumour appropriate transanal or robotic assisted approach to total mesorectal excision in high-volume rectal cancer practice is safe and cost-effective.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is accepted as the gold standard for oncological resection in rectal cancer. The best approach to TME is debated and often surgeons will select a preferred approach. In this study, we aimed to describe how both robotic (R-TME) and transanal (TaTME) TME can be integrated into high-volume rectal cancer surgeon practice with a comparison of clinical and oncological outcomes and cost analysis. A prospective comparative cohort study was performed in a high-volume rectal cancer centre comparing the previous 50 R-TME and 50 TaTME performed by the same surgeon. A comparison of tumour characteristics was performed to highlight a specific role for each technique. Clinical outcomes (operative duration, length of stay (LOS) and perioperative morbidity), cancer quality indicators (resection margin and completeness of TME) and cost analysis were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS, version 20. R-TME was preferred in mid-rectal cancer, compared to TaTME preferred in low rectal cancer (9cm vs. 5cm, p < 0.001). Operative duration was longer in R-TME compared to TaTME (265 vs. 179min, p < 0.001). Major complications (CD III-IV complications) were experienced in 10% of R-TME and 14% of TaTME (p = 0.476). A 98% (n = 49) clear R0 resection margin was achieved with both R-TME and TaTME and mesorectum quality defined as 'complete' in 86% (n = 43) in R-TME and 82% (n = 41) in TaTME. Length of hospital stay was shorter in R-TME (5 vs. 7days, p = 0.624). An overall difference of €131 was observed favouring TaTME. In high-volume rectal cancer surgery practice, both R-TME and TaTME can be practised and tailored according to patients and tumour characteristics, with comparable clinical and cancer outcomes and is cost-effective.

The impact of mesorectal fat area on recurrence following total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer.

The mesorectal fat area (MFA) at the tip of the ischial spines on magnetic resonance imaging has been used to characterize mesorectal morphology. Recent studies reported that a larger MFA correlated with difficulties in rectal cancer surgery. However, the relationship between MFA and rectal cancer prognosis remains unclear. This study evaluated the impact of MFA on recurrence following robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Patients who underwent robotic TME for lower rectal cancer from December 2011 to December 2016 were enrolled. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine variables associated with relapse-free survival (RFS). Patients were divided into groups based on MFA, and RFS was compared. Of 230 patients, 173 (75.3%) were male. The median age was 63years, and median MFA was 19.7 cm2. In multivariate analysis, smaller MFA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.97; p < 0.01), p/yp stage II (HR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.40-10.35; p < 0.01), and p/yp stage III (HR, 5.35; 95% CI, 1.88-15.27; p < 0.01) were independently associated with worse RFS. Sex, body mass index, and visceral fat area were not correlated with RFS. In the median follow-up period of 60.8months, patients with MFA < 19.7 cm2 had a significantly lower 5-year RFS rate (72.7%) than those with MFA ≥ 19.7 cm2 (85.0%). Smaller MFA was associated with worse RFS in patients undergoing robotic TME for lower rectal cancer. MFA is considered to be a prognostic factor in rectal cancer.

Robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer based on the theory of fundamental use of surgical energy

Improving oncological curability and preserving urinary function must be established in robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. To achieve this, it is important to avoid nerve injury by sharp dissection of the avascular plane by the monopolar device and thermal spread. The aim of this study was to improve the robotic TME quality by focusing on the theory of fundamental use of surgical energy (FUSE) of the monopolar device and investigating the surgical procedure. In this single-center retrospective study, 26 consecutive patients who underwent robotic TME for rectal cancer at Tokyo Medical University Hospital between June 2022 and August 2022 were included. All surgeries were performed by FUSE-certified surgeons in accordance with FUSE theory, which was, thermal effect = current density (current/area) squared × tissue resistance × contact time. The median age of the patients was 64years (range 40-79years), and 17 patients were male. The median operative time was 287min (range 229-430min); median bleeding volume, 22ml (range 5-223ml); and the median number of harvested lymph nodes, 17 (range 4-40). The conversion rate to open surgery was 0%. A breakdown of Clavien-Dindo classification Grade ≥ II post-operative complications was as follows: surgical site infection, one patient (3.8%); ileus, one patient (3.8%); and urinary dysfunction, one patient (3.8%). No surgery-related or in-hospital deaths occurred. The pathological positive resection margin was not observed. Robotic TME for rectal cancer based on the theory of FUSE can be safely performed, making it a promising surgical procedure. It is suggested that robotic surgeons acquire surgical operation skills with monopolar devices based on the principles of FUSE, which may lead to an increased quality of robotic TME.

Robotic male and laparoscopic female sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer share similar specimen quality, complication rates and long-term oncological outcomes.

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision in female patients (F-Lap-TME) and robotic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision in male patients (M-Rob-TME) with mid-low rectal cancer (RC). A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. 170 cases (F-Lap-TME: 60 patients; M-Rob-TME: 110 patients) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2011-January 2020). Clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Operating time was longer in M-Rob-TME than in F-Lap-TME group (185.3 ± 28.4 vs 124.5 ± 35.8min, p < 0.001). There was no conversion to open surgery in both groups. Quality of mesorectum was complete/near-complete in 58 (96.7%) and 107 (97.3%) patients of F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME (p = 0.508), respectively. Circumferential radial margin involvement was observed in 2 (3.3%) and 3 (2.9%) in F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME patients (p = 0.210), respectively. Median length of follow-up was 62 (24-108) months in the F-Lap-TME and 64 (24-108) months in the M-Rob-TME group. Five-year overall survival rates were 90.5% in the F-Lap-TME and 89.6% in the M-Rob-TME groups (p = 0.120). Disease-free survival rates in F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME groups were 87.5% and 86.5% (p = 0.145), respectively. Local recurrence rates were 5% (n = 3) and 5.5% (n = 6) (p = 0.210), in the F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME groups, respectively. The robotic technique can potentially overcome some technical challenges related to the pelvic anatomical difference between sex compared to laparoscopy. Laparoscopic and robotic approach, respectively in female and male patients provide similar surgical specimen quality, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncological results.