Robotic versus standard laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative study of short-term and oncological outcomes (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ejso, 2014
Background: Despite the several series in which the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery were investigated, data concerning the long-term outcomes are still scarce. Methods: The prospectively collected records of 65 consecutive patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) were compared with those of 109 consecutive patients treated with open surgery (OTME). Patient characteristics, pathological findings, local and systemic recurrence rates and 5-year survival rates were compared. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications, reoperation and 30-day mortality. There were significant differences comparing groups: number of lymph nodes harvested (RTME: 20.1 vs. OTME: 14.1, P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (RTME: 0 vs. OTME: 150 ml, P ¼ 0.003), operation time (RTME: 299.0 vs. OTME: 207.5 min, P < 0.001) and length of postoperative stay (RTME: 6 vs. OTME: 9 days, P < 0.001). The rate of circumferential resection margin involvement and distal resection margin were not statistically different between groups. There were no statistically significant differences at the 5-year follow-up: overall survival, disease-free survival and cancer-specific survival. The cumulative local recurrence rate was statistically lower in the robotic group (RTME: 3.4% vs. OTME: 16.1%, P ¼ 0.024). Conclusion: RTME showed a significant reduction in local recurrence rate and a higher, although not statistically significant, long-term cancer-specific survival with respect to OTME. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm or deny significantly better local control rates with robotic surgery.
Updates in Surgery, 2019
From January 2011 to December 2015, 70 consecutive patients underwent either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic surgery (RS) total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy. Data were prospectically recorded in a dedicated local database including ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results. We enrolled 70 consecutive patients, 35 treated with LS (18 M, 17 F), 35 treated with RS (23 M, 12 F). Median total operative time was 225 min in LS group (IQR 194-255) and 252.5 min for RS group (IQR 214-300). Median first flatus time was 2 days for LS group (IQR 1-3) and 1 day for RS group (IQR 1-2). Stool discharge time (median) was 4 days for LS group (IQR 2-5) and 2 days for RS group (IQR 1-3). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR 7-10) and 7 days in RS group (IQR 5-8). It was not found any statistically significant difference between the two groups when we analyzed the number nodes harvested the postoperative complications. The 30 day mortality was 0% in both two groups. The conversion rate for LS group was 23% (8/35 pts) and that for RS group was 0% (0/35). The RS may overcome technical limitations of LS. In our experience, it is a feasible and safe technique, it achieves better clinical outcomes due to the lower conversion rate compared to LS, although with higher costs.
Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Versus Transanal Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer
Annals of Surgery, 2019
Objective: To compare techniques for rectal cancer resection. Summary Background Data: Different surgical approaches exist for mesorectal excision. Methods: Systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed. Results: Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials included, reporting on 6237 participants, comparing: open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision. No significant differences identified between treatments in intraoperative morbidity, conversion rate, grade III/IV morbidity, reoperation, anastomotic leak, nodes retrieved, involved distal margin, 5year overall survival, and locoregional recurrence. Operative blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery compared with open, and with robotic surgery compared with open and laparoscopic. Robotic operative time was longer compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. Laparoscopic operative time was longer compared with open. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in lower overall postoperative morbidity and fewer wound infections compared with open. Robotic surgery had fewer wound infections compared with open. Time to defecation was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic. Hospital stay was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery compared with robotic. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in more incomplete or nearly complete mesorectal excisions compared with open, and in more involved circumferential resection margins compared with transanal. Robotic surgery resulted in longer distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. Conclusions: The different techniques result in comparable perioperative morbidity and long-term survival. The laparoscopic and robotic approaches may improve postoperative recovery, and the open and transanal approaches may improve oncological resection. Technique selection should be based on expected benefits by individual patient.
Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer (RC) is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach, but robotic-assisted surgery may overcome some limitations of laparoscopy in RC treatment. We compared the rate of positive circumferential margins between robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision (TME) for RC in our institution. Methods: Mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma patients consecutively submitted to robotic surgery were compared to laparoscopic and open approach. From our prospective database, 59 patients underwent robotic-assisted rectal surgery from 2012 to 2015 (RTME group) were compared to our historical control group comprising 200 open TME (OTME group) and 41 laparoscopic TME (LTME group) approaches from July 2008 to February 2012. Primary endpoint was to compare the rate of involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) and the mean CRM between the three groups. Secondary endpoint was to compare the mean number of resected lymph nodes between the three groups. Results: CRM involvement was demonstrated in 20 patients (15.5%) in OTME, 4 (16%) in LTME and 9 (16.4%) in the RTME (p ¼ 0.988). The mean CRM in OTME, LTME and RTME were respectively 0.6 cm (0e2.7), 0.7 cm (0e2.0) and 0.6 cm (0e2.0) (p ¼ 0.960). Overall mean LN harvest was 14 (0e56); 16 (0e52) in OTME, 13 (1e56) in LTME and 10 (0e45) in RTME (p ¼ 0.156). Conclusion: Our results suggest that robotic TME has the same oncological short-term results when compared to the open and laparoscopic technique, and it could be safely offered for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer.
Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis
Journal of Surgical Research, 2014
Background: Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery; but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer (RC). We conducted this meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of RTME in patients with RC are equivalent to those of LTME. Materials and methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RTME with LTME for RC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated. Results: Eight studies were identified that included 1229 patients in total, 554 (45.08%) in the RTME and 675 (54.92%) in the LTME. Meta-analysis suggested that the conversion rate to open surgery in RTME was significantly lower than in LTME (P ¼ 0.0004). There were no significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, recovery outcome, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, and the oncological accuracy of resection and local recurrence between the two groups. The positive rate of circumferential resection margins (P ¼ 0.04) and the incidence of erectile dysfunction (P ¼ 0.002) were lower in RTME compared with LTME. Conclusions: RTME for RC is safe and feasible, and the short-and medium-term oncological and functional outcomes are equivalent or preferable to LTME. It may be an alternative treatment for RC. More multicenter randomized controlled trials investigating the longterm oncological and functional outcomes are required to determine the advantages of RTME over LTME in RC.
Medicine, 2015
The true benefits of robotic surgery are controversial, and whether robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be justified as a standard treatment for rectal cancer patients needs to be clarified. This case-matched study aimed to compare the postoperative complications and short- and long-term outcomes of R-TME and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) for rectal cancer.Among 1029 patients, we identified 278 rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME. Propensity score matching was used to match this group with 278 patients who underwent L-TME.The mean follow-up period was similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 52.5 ± 17.1 vs 51.0 ± 13.1 months, P = 0.253), as were patient characteristics. The operation time was significantly longer in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (361.6 ± 91.9 vs 272.4 ± 83.8 min; P < 0.001), whereas the conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and recovery of pain and bowel motility were similar between both groups. The rates of circumferential resecti...
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Background Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision are the minimally invasive techniques used most for rectal cancer surgery. Because data regarding oncologic results are lacking, this study aimed to compare these three techniques while taking the learning curve into account. Methods This retrospective population-based study cohort included all patients between 2015 and 2017 who underwent a low anterior resection at 11 dedicated centers that had completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) during a 3-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes were 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Cox-regression. Results The 617 patients enrolled in the study included 252 who underwent a laparoscopic resection, 205 who underwent a robot-assisted resection, and 160 who underwent a transanal low anterior resection. The oncologic outcomes ...
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology
Emerging techniques in minimally invasive rectal resection include robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME). The Da Vinci Surgical System offers precise dissection in narrow and deep confined spaces and is gaining increasing acceptance during recent times. The aim of this study is to analyse our initial experience of R-TME with Da Vinci Xi platform in terms of perioperative and oncological outcomes in the context of data from recently published randomised ROLARR trial amongst minimally invasive novice surgeons. Patients who underwent R-TME or tumour specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between May 2016 and November 2019 were identified from a prospectively maintained single institution colorectal database. Demographic, clinical-pathological and short-term oncological outcomes were analysed. Of the 178 patients, 117 (65.7%) and 31 (17.4%) patients had lower and mid third rectal cancer. Most of the tumours were locally advanced, cT3–T4: 138 (77.5%). One hundred/178 (56.2%) ...
Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2019
Total mesorectal excision (TME) is currently recognised as the standard of care for patients with rectal cancer. Complete TME is known to be associated with lower rates of recurrence. Robotic and endoscopic TaTME approaches are reported to offer excellent proximal and distal rectal dissection into the TME plane, however, combining both approaches in a hybrid procedure could potentially optimise visualisation of the dissection plane and confer improved circumferential and distal margin rates. The aim of this study was to analyse the feasibility of a hybrid robotic abdominal approach with conventional TaTME for rectal cancer. Furthermore, pathological and patient outcomes were assessed. A review of prospectively maintained databases was undertaken to assess all patients undergoing robotic TME surgery for rectal tumours from August 2016 to October 2017. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and outcomes were collated from patient charts and hospital databases. All patients underwent a modified Cecil approach after multidisciplinary team discussion. Eight patients (7 male, 1 female) underwent a combined hybrid approach with a median age of 60 years (range 47-73) and BMI of 29.5 (range 20-39.1) kg/m 2. Median distance from the anorectal junction (ARJ) was 7.5 (range 4-13) cm. Six patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment with chemoradiotherapy. Patients had a median length of stay (LOS) of 9 (range 4-33) days. There were no intra-operative complications encountered and no patients required a conversion to an open procedure. Complications included one anastomotic leak and one presacral collection. All patients had a complete TME with RO resection with a median number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (range 6-37) lymph nodes. This hybrid technique is a feasible, practical and operatively favourable approach to rectal cancer surgery with initial pathological outcomes and complication profile equivalent to other approaches.
Surgical Endoscopy, 2013
Background Long-term data from the CLASICC study demonstrated the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery despite an increased circumferential resection margin involvement in the laparoscopic group in the initial report. Moreover, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) may be associated with increased rates of male sexual dysfunction compared to conventional open TME. Robotic surgery could potentially obtain better results than laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in a single-center experience. Methods This study was based on 100 patients who underwent minimally invasive anterior rectal resection with TME. Fifty consecutive robotic rectal anterior resections with TME (R-TME) were compared to the first 50 consecutive laparoscopic rectal resections with TME (L-TME). Results Median operative time was 270 min in R-TME and 275 min in L-TME. No conversions occurred in the R-TME group whereas six conversions occurred in the L-TME group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 16.5 ± 7.1 for R-TME and 13.8 ± 6.7 for L-TME. The circumferential margin (CRM) was\2 mm in six L-TME patients, whereas no one in R-TME group had a CRM \2 mm. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) scores were significantly increased 1 month after surgery in both the L-TME and R-TME groups, but they normalized 1 year after surgery. Erectile function worsened significantly 1 month after surgery in both the groups but it was restored completely 1 year after surgery in the R-TME group and partially in the L-TME group. Conclusions Robotic TME is oncologically safe and adequate for rectal cancer treatment, showing better results than laparoscopic TME in terms of CRM, conversions, and hospital length of stay. Better recovery in voiding and sexual function is achieved with the robotic technique.