Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liao G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4882598 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence.
Liao Guixiang G Li Yan-Bing YB Zhao Zhihong Z Li Xianming X Deng Haijun H Li Gang G
Scientific reports 20160527
The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:To give a comprehensive review of current literature on robotic rectal cancer surgery.A systematic review of current literature via PubMed and Embase search engines was performed to identify relevant articles from january 2007 to november 2013. The keywords used were: "robotic surgery", "surgical robotics", "laparoscopic computer-assisted surgery", "colectomy" and "rectal resection".After the initial screen of 380 articles, 20 papers were selected for review. A total of 1062 patients (male 64.0%) with a mean age of 61.1 years and body mass index of 24.9 kg/m(2) were included in the review. Out of 1062 robotic-assisted operations, 831 (78.2%) anterior and low anterior resections, 132 (12.4%) intersphincteric resection with coloanal anastomosis, 98 (9.3%) abdominoperineal resections and 1 (0.1%) Hartmann's operation were included in the review. Robotic rectal surgery was associated with longer operative time but with comparable oncological results and anastomotic leak rate when compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery.Robotic colorectal surgery has continued to evolve to its current state with promising results; feasible surgical option with low conversion rate and comparable short-term oncological results. The challenges faced with robotic surgery are for more high quality studies to justify its cost.
| S-EPMC4058726 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic-assisted simultaneous resection and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer and liver metastases.BackgroundOpen simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases is widely performed and the potential cure for eligible patients. However, the feasibility of robotic simultaneous resection of primary and secondary liver lesions has not been established as a treatment option for metastatic rectal cancer.Patients and methodsA single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted at a hospital in China. Enrolling patients were aged from 18 to 75 years and diagnosed with surgically resectable metastatic rectal cancer (distal extension to ≤15 cm from the anal margin). Patients selected for simultaneous resection were randomly assigned to have robotic or open surgery at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of complications within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints were bladder, sexual function, 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival.ResultsA total of 171 patients were enrolled in this trial with 86 in the robotic group and 85 in the open group. As a result, patients in the robotic group demonstrated fewer complications within 30 days after surgery than those in the open group (31.4% vs. 57.6%, P=0.014) and no mortality seen in either group. Patients in the robotic group had less blood loss (mean [SD], 125.5 [38.3] vs. 211.6 [68.7] mL; P<0·001), faster bowel function recovery (mean [SD], 63.7 [27.4] vs. 93.8 [33.5] hours) P<0·001) and shorter hospital stay (mean [SD], 8.0 [2.2] vs. 10.7 [5.4] days; P<0·001) compared with those in the open group. The robotic group had faster recovery of bladder and sexual function at 3 months after surgery than that of the open group. The 3-year disease-free survival rate (39.5% vs. 35.3%, P=0.739) and the 3-year overall survival rate (76.7% vs. 72.9%, P=0.712) were not statistically significant between the two groups.ConclusionsIn our randomized clinical trial, robotic simultaneous resection treatment of patients with rectal cancer and liver metastases resulted in fewer surgical complications, and faster recovery to those of open surgery. Oncological outcomes showed no significant difference between two groups.
| S-EPMC10651267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The outcomes of robot-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, compared with open resection, have not been fully characterized. A retrospective analysis of pathologic, short-term, and long-term outcomes in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent total or tumour-specific mesorectal excision at a high-volume cancer centre between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. Outcomes after robotic and open surgery were compared on an intention-to-treat basis. Out of 1048 resections performed, 1018 patients were reviewed, with 638 who underwent robotic surgery and 380 open surgery. Robotic surgery was converted to the open approach in 17 (2.7 per cent) patients. Patients who underwent robotic surgery were younger (median 54 (range 22-91) years versus median 58 (range 18-97) years; P < 0.001), had higher tumours (median 80 (range 0-150) mm from the anal verge versus median 70 (0-150) mm; P = 0.001), and were less likely to have received neoadjuvant therapy (64 per cent versus 73 per cent; P = 0.003). For patients who underwent a robotic total mesorectal excision, the operating time was longer (median 283.5 (range 117-712) min versus median 249 (range 70-661) min; P < 0.001). However, the rate of complications was lower (29 per cent versus 45 per cent; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was shorter (median 5 (range 1-32) days versus median 7 (range 0-137) days; P < 0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 2.9 years. The proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin did not differ between the groups, nor did the rate of local recurrence (robotic versus open: 3.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.9 to 5.6 versus 2.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.0 to 4.6; P = 0.400), systemic recurrence (robotic versus open: 11.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 8.5 to 14.8 versus 13.0 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 9.2 to 16.5; P = 0.300), or overall survival (robotic versus open: 97.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 96.3 to 99.3 versus 93.5 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 90.8 to 96.2; P = 0.050). The same results were documented in a subanalysis of 370 matched patients, including 185 who underwent robotic surgery and 185 open surgery, for the overall incidence of any postoperative complications, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and systemic recurrence. In patients with rectal cancer who are candidates for curative resection, robotic mesorectal excision is associated with lower complication rates, shorter length of stay, and equivalent oncologic outcomes, compared with open mesorectal excision.
| S-EPMC8765333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The open surgeries and more recently minimal invasive surgeries aided by laparoscopic or robotic approaches are employed for rectal cancer treatment procedures. The open approach is the most commonly opted technique, but recent studies have also shown that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has become the standard of care. There are certain shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery such as long learning curve, inadequate counter traction, limited dexterity, lack of tactile feedback and limited two-dimensional visions. Robotic surgery also offers several benefits to overcome the drawbacks of laparoscopic procedures, such as providing better dexterity and a more stable visualization. This study aims to analyse the surgical results in terms of completion of TME, short-term surgical outcomes and hospital stay in after open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted rectal resections respectively. A retrospective review of prospectively maintained database of patients operated for carcinoma rectum between January 2013 and August 2018 at Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Manipal-Vattikuti Institute of Robotic Surgery, Bangalore, was analysed in this study. The surgical parameters like completion of total mesorectal excision; proximal, distal and circumferential resection margins; number of nodes retrieved; and total post operative hospital stay were analysed in the open, laparoscopic-assisted and robotic-assisted groups. A total of 100 patients were included in the study consisting of 25, 25 and 50 patients each in the open, laparoscopic and robotic arms respectively. In case the desired results were not obtained using the advanced technique the procedure was converted and open technique was adopted. The conversion rate to open procedure was 8% (2of 25) in the laparoscopic-assisted group and 2% (1/50) in the robotic-assisted group. The average post operative hospital stay was 7.4, 7.36 and 6 days in the open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted group (p = 0.01) respectively. Robotic rectal resections show a trend towards better surgical results in the form of improved circumferential resection margins, completeness of TME and lower conversion rates.
| S-EPMC7714866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a recently developed minimally invasive surgery used in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. However, its safety and feasibility remain undiscussed and controversial. This study reported the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors pertaining to traditional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone against that of robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction to provide a discussion on this issue. 49 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction and 49 matched patients who underwent conventional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection were systematically analyzed in this study. Regarding the baseline characteristics, after matching, no significant differences were observed between the natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) group and the robotic assisted rectal cancer resection (RARC) group. Patients in the NOSE group had a reduced visual analog scale (p < 0.001), passed flatus more quickly (p = 0.002) and suffered less surgical stress than those in the RARC group. Moreover, 4 complications were observed in the NOSE group and 7 complications in the RARC group with no significant difference (p = 0.337) in terms of complications. The two groups had a similar survival outcomes, where the 3-year overall survival (p = 0.738) and 3-year progression-free survival (p = 0.986) were all comparable between the two groups. Histological differentiation and T stage could be regarded as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival. Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgery for patients suffering from rectal cancer as it encompasses considerable several advantages. Histological differentiation and T stage may serve as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival.
| S-EPMC7392890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition three-dimensional vision, it translates the surgeon's hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors' centre.
| S-EPMC4716058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robotic surgery has been advocated for the radical excision of rectal cancer. Most data supporting its use have been reported from European and Asian centers, with a paucity of data from the United States documenting clear advantages of the robotic technique. This study compares the short-term outcome of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.Consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (group 1) or robotic (group 2) rectal cancer excision at a single institution over a 2-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The main outcome measures were operative time, blood loss, conversion rates, number of lymph nodes, margin positivity, length of hospital stay, complications, and readmission rates.Forty-two patients were analyzed. The median operative time was shorter in group 1 than that in group 2 (240 minutes vs 260 minutes, P=.04). No difference was noted in blood loss, transfusion rates, intraoperative complications, or conversion rates. There was no difference in circumferential or distal margin positivity. The median length of stay was shorter in group 1 (5 days vs 6 days, P=.05). The 90-day complication rate was similar in both groups (33% vs 43%, P=.75), but there was a trend toward more anastomotic leaks in group 1 (14% vs 0%, P=.23). Similarly, a non-statistically significant trend toward a higher readmission rate was noted in group 1 (24% vs 5%, P=.18).Robotic rectal cancer excision yielded a longer operative time and hospital length of stay, although immediate oncologic results were comparable. The need for randomized data is critical to determine whether the added resource utilization in robotic surgery is justifiable.
| S-EPMC4208889 | biostudies-other
Project description:Robotic surgery, used generally for colorectal cancer, has the advantages of a three-dimensional surgical view, steadiness, and seven degrees of robotic arms. However, there are disadvantages, such as a decreased sense of touch, extra time needed to dock the robotic cart, and high cost. Robotic surgery is performed using various techniques, with or without laparoscopic surgery. Because the results of this approach are reported to be similar to or less favorable than those of laparoscopic surgery, the learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery remains controversial. However, according to short- and long-term oncologic outcomes, robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe compared with conventional surgery. Advanced technologies in robotic surgery have resulted in favorable intraoperative and perioperative clinical outcomes as well as functional outcomes. As the technical advances in robotic surgery improve surgical performance as well as outcomes, it increasingly is being regarded as a treatment option for colorectal surgery. However, a multicenter, randomized clinical trial is needed to validate this approach.
| S-EPMC4751169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Median sternotomy has been the most commonly used approach for thymectomy to date. Recent advances in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic access with CO2 insufflation techniques have allowed more minimally invasive approaches. However, prior reviews have not compared robotic to both open and VATS thymectomy. Methods:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases. Original research articles comparing robotic to VATS or to open thymectomy for myasthenia gravis, anterior mediastinal masses, or thymomas were included. Meta-analyses were performed for mortality, operative time, blood loss, transfusions, length of stay, conversion to open, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, and positive/negative margin rates. Results:Robotic thymectomy is a valid alternative to the open approach; advantages include: reduced blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD): -173.03, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -305.90, -40.17, P=0.01], fewer postoperative complications (odds ratio: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.60, P<0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.78, 95% CI: -3.22, -2.33, P<0.00001), and a lower positive margin rate (relative difference: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.07, -0.01, P=0.01), with comparable operative times (WMD: 6.73, 95% CI: -21.20, 34.66, P=0.64). Robotic thymectomy was comparable with the VATS approach; both have the advantage of avoiding median sternotomy. Conclusions:While randomized controlled studies are required to make definitive conclusions, current data suggests that robotic thymectomy is superior to open surgery and comparable to a VATS approach. Long-term follow-up is required to further delineate oncological outcomes.
| S-EPMC6462547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite many years of experience with laparoscopic procedures in rectal cancer, the superiority of minimally invasive approaches has been questioned especially in recent years. This article is a short review of the current knowledge about laparoscopic approaches in comparison to conventional modalities in patients with rectal cancer. To present the current state of the knowledge, we focused on reports that were published in the last few years and compared them to multicenter trials and meta-analyses published last year. Our analysis mainly applied to the primary end-points of these trials. We also included expert opinions that have been published in the last several months.
| S-EPMC6753985 | biostudies-literature