Surgical Approach For Rectal Cancer Research Articles

Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer.

This review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies. Data from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

AB017. SOH21AS078. Surgical approach for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) approaches

AB017. SOH21AS078. Surgical approach for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) approaches

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews.

Regarding the surgical approaches for rectal cancer, many techniques have been reported in randomized controlled trials, meta‐analyses, and reviews of comparisons between two techniques, e.g. open surgery vs laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery vs robotic surgery, or laparoscopic surgery vs transanal total mesorectal excision. Since robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision were developed after laparoscopic surgery had become an established minimally invasive technique, they have each been compared with laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, a review was performed to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision, and to perform such comparisons among ≥3 of the above mentioned approaches, in the expectation that this review will serve as a reference for aiding treatment selection in future. The results of the current review suggest that all of the examined procedures have advantages and disadvantages, but that there are no decisive factors that could be used to select one procedure over any other. At the present time it cannot be demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, transanal total mesorectal excision, or open surgery is superior to the other techniques, and it is important to select the best technique for each patient from among those that a surgeon can perform. It is also important to maintain a flexible attitude that allows new techniques to be adopted as needed in the future.

Surgical approach for rectal cancer: A network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME approaches

BackgroundThe optimal approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) of rectal cancer remains controversial. AimTo compare short- and long-term outcomes after open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME) and transanal TME (TaTME). MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases was performed up to January 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least 2 TME strategies. A Bayesian arm-based random effect network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, specifically, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC). Results30 RCTs (and six updates) of 5586 patients with rectal cancer were included. No significant differences were identified in recurrence rates or survival rates. Operating time was shorter with OpTME (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.96) compared to LapTME, RoTME and TaTME. Although OpTME was associated with the most blood loss (SUCRA 0.90) and had a slower recovery with increased length of stay (SUCRA 0.90) compared to the minimally invasive techniques, there was no difference in postoperative morbidity. OpTME was associated with a more complete TME specimen compared to LapTME (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.01, 1.11), and TaTME had less involved CRMs (RR 0.173, 95% CrI 0.02, 0.76) versus LapTME. There were no differences between the modalities in terms of deep TME defects, DRM distance, or lymph node yield. ConclusionsWhile OpTME was the most effective TME modality for short term histopathological resection quality, there was no difference in long-term oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches enhance postoperative recovery, at the cost of longer operating times. Technique selection should be based on individual tumour characteristics and patient expectations, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise.

Introduction of new techniques and technologies in surgery: Where is transanal total mesorectal excision today?

The introduction of new surgical techniques and technologies has traditionally been unregulated. In many settings surgeons frequently adopt novel procedures without following a structured program of implementation or supervision. The appearance of innovative technology played a pivotal role in the advancement of new surgical techniques during the industrial revolution. Innovation has been an essential component of surgical development, which led to contemporary surgical techniques such as minimally invasive surgery. Different initiatives have been developed to guide the safe introduction of new surgical techniques and other procedures. Those include comprehensive concepts such as the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study framework, which could be particularly relevant when reflecting on the novel transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME), introduced a decade ago. This relatively novel and complex procedure promised to overcome some of the major limitations of traditional surgical approaches for rectal cancer. According to the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study framework, taTME is in the phase of exploration, where there is an existing and increasing number of reports being published as the experience grows. The current management of rectal cancer is in a state of radical evolution, with multiple options that were not previously available. TaTME is only one technique amongst many which could be part of a rectal cancer surgeon’s armamentarium; however, it requires further rigorous study and evaluation.

Evolution of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision.

Minimally invasive techniques continue to transform the field of colorectal surgery. Because traditional surgical approaches for rectal cancer are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, developing less invasive approaches to this disease is paramount. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), commonly known as "no incision surgery," represents the ultimate minimally invasive approach to disease. Although transgastric and transvaginal approaches for NOTES surgery were the initially explored, a transrectal approach for colorectal disease is intuitive given that it makes use of the resected organ for transluminal access. Furthermore, the transanal approach allows for improved, precise visualization of the presacral mesorectal plane compared with an abdominal viewpoint, particularly in the narrow, male pelvis. Finally, experience with existing transanal platforms that have been used for decades for local excision of rectal disease made the development of a transanal approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) feasible. Here, we will review the evolution of minimally invasive and transanal surgical techniques that allowed for the development of transanal TME and its introduction into clinical practice.

Robotic-assisted surgery may be a useful approach to protect urinary function in the modern era of diverse surgical approaches for rectal cancer.

Urinary dysfunction (UD) remains a significant complication of rectal cancer surgery. In modern surgical treatment for rectal cancer, multiple operative approaches are used. Such approaches include open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted surgery; and multiple procedures, including anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resection. Thus, modern surgical treatments for rectal cancer have diversified. This study aimed to identify risk factors for early UD (EUD) after total mesorectal excision (TME) and to explore the methods for decreasing postoperative EUD in diverse surgical treatments for rectal cancer. In our retrospective cohort study, we enrolled patients with lower rectal cancer who underwent TME alone at a single high-volume cancer center between 2010 and 2017. EUD was defined as the presence of ≥ 50mL residual urine volume. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine clinicopathological factors significantly associated with postoperative EUD. Of a total of 337 eligible patients, 32 patients (10%) had postoperative EUD. Multivariate analysis revealed that only the operative approach (laparoscopic surgery: odds ratio [OR], 8.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.94-27.14, open surgery: OR, 11.55; 95% CI 2.10-63.83) was significantly associated with an increase in postoperative EUD. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with significant reduction in postoperative EUD. Only robotic-assisted surgery was inversely correlated with postoperative EUD. Robotic-assisted surgery may be a useful approach to protect urinary function in lower rectal cancer surgery.

Low Ligation of Inferior Mesenteric Artery in Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer Reduces Genitourinary Dysfunction: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial (HIGHLOW Trial).

The aim of the present study was to compare the incidence of genitourinary (GU) dysfunction after elective laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection and total mesorectal excision (LAR + TME) with high or low ligation (LL) of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). Secondary aims included the incidence of anastomotic leakage and oncological outcomes. The criterion standard surgical approach for rectal cancer is LAR + TME. The level of artery ligation remains an issue related to functional outcome, anastomotic leak rate, and oncological adequacy. Retrospective studies failed to provide strong evidence in favor of one particular vascular approach and the specific impact on GU function is poorly understood. Between June 2014 and December 2016, patients who underwent elective laparoscopic LAR + TME in 6 Italian nonacademic hospitals were randomized to high ligation (HL) or LL of IMA after meeting the inclusion criteria. GU function was evaluated using a standardized survey and uroflowmetric examination. The trial was registered under the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02153801. A total of 214 patients were randomized to HL (n = 111) or LL (n = 103). GU function was impaired in both groups after surgery. LL group reported better continence and less obstructive urinary symptoms and improved quality of life at 9 months postoperative. Sexual function was better in the LL group compared to HL group at 9 months. Urinated volume, maximum urinary flow, and flow time were significantly (P < 0.05) in favor of the LL group at 1 and 9 months from surgery. The ultrasound measured post void residual volume and average urinary flow were significantly (P < 0.05) better in the LL group at 9 months postoperatively. Time of flow worsened in both groups at 9 months compared to baseline. There was no difference in anastomotic leak rate (8.1% HL vs 6.7% LL). There were no differences in terms of blood loss, surgical times, postoperative complications, and initial oncological outcomes between groups. LL of the IMA in LAR + TME results in better GU function preservation without affecting initial oncological outcomes. HL does not seem to increase the anastomotic leak rate.

The learning curve in TaTME—considerations to guide safe implementation

For a colorectal surgeon, the immediate goal in rectal cancer surgery is to extract a perfect total mesorectal excision (TME) specimen with clear oncologic margins. Since the introduction of the TME concept by Heald in 1982, data from both historic and modern randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing surgical approaches for rectal cancer have demonstrated that this can be challenging (1-5). The subjective perception of a technically challenging and often unsatisfactory pelvic dissection, paired with the ongoing controversy regarding the optimal surgical approach, fuel the need for further innovation.

The learning curve in TaTME—considerations to guide safe implementation

For a colorectal surgeon, the immediate goal in rectal cancer surgery is to extract a perfect total mesorectal excision (TME) specimen with clear oncologic margins. Since the introduction of the TME concept by Heald in 1982, data from both historic and modern randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing surgical approaches for rectal cancer have demonstrated that this can be challenging (1-5). The subjective perception of a technically challenging and often unsatisfactory pelvic dissection, paired with the ongoing controversy regarding the optimal surgical approach, fuel the need for further innovation.

Landmark study comparing surgical approaches for rectal cancer

Although numerous studies have reported the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, the results of large multicentre randomized controlled trials have been lacking. A study including 1,103 patients has now shown that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can result in similar safety, resection margins and completeness of resection with improved recovery compared with laparotomy.