Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotic Surgery

  • 101 Accesses

Abstract

Robotic TME is an evolution of the classic laparoscopic technique with an aim to overcome the limitations of the non-articulating laparoscopic instruments within the narrow confines of the pelvis. The purpose of this chapter is to share our experience and the experience of others in this constantly evolving field of robotic TME.

In the context of pelvic dissection, there are several properties that make the robotic system more advantageous to use as compared to laparoscopic or open techniques. The platform provides very stable optics with the surgeon in control of the camera, allowing for constant adjustments. This, together with simultaneous control of three working, articulating wrist instruments, gives the surgeon the ability to completely control the operating field. This is often essential when working with obese patients, bulky tumors, or within the narrow pelvic confines.

Despite many factors that allow for easier completion of this task, it still remains an advanced procedure and is associated with a steep learning curve. Many studies have documented use of the robotic total mesorectal excision technique to be associated with decreased conversion rates, improved mesorectal envelope completeness, and improved genitourinary function. Still, there have been no randomized controlled trials proving unequivocally the superiority of this technique over the other approaches.

At the present time, robotic technology should not be treated as a replacement for other techniques, but rather as an available, and powerful tool in a surgeon’s armamentarium. Because of the very high cost of this technology, the most practical option is to select the population of patients that may be best served through use of these surgical techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Heald RJ, et al. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery- the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg. 1982;69(10):613–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heald RJ. The ‘holy plane’ of rectal surgery. J R Soc Med. 1988;81(9):503–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Jayne D, et al. Effect of robotic- assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1569–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Fleshman J, et al. Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage II to III rectal Cancer: follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stevenson AR, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal Cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1356–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stevenson AR, et al. Disease-free survival and local recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal Cancer: the Australasian laparoscopic Cancer of the rectum randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Guillou PJ, et al. MRC CLASICC trial group. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1718–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pigazzi A, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2006;20(10):1521–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bianchi PP, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(11):2888–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. deSouza AL, et al. Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the potential advantage of robotic assistance. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(12):1611–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Park JS, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(12):3195–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pigazzi A, et al. Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1614–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. deSouza AL, et al. A comparison of open and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(3):275–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kwak JM, et al. Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case-control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(2):151–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baek SJ, et al. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a cost analysis from a single institute in Korea. World J Surg. 2012;36(11):2722–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. D’Annibale A, et al. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(6):1887–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kang J, et al. The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis of a 3-arm comparison—open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Ann Surg. 2013;257(1):95–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ghezzi TL, et al. Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparative study of short and long-term outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(9):1072–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hara M, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma: short-term and midterm outcomes from 200 consecutive cases at a single institution. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(5):570–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yoo BE, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison of the operative, oncological, and functional outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(4):1219–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pai A, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Melich G, Sulo S, Prasad LM. Oncologic and clinicopathologic outcomes of robot-assisted Total Mesorectal excision for rectal Cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(7):659–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahmed J, et al. Totally robotic rectal resection: an experience of the first 100 consecutive cases. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31(4):869–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahmed J, et al. Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal surgery in high-risk patients. Color Dis. 2017;19(12):1092–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lim DR, et al. Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(4):1728–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee L, et al. A multicenter matched comparison of Transanal and robotic Total Mesorectal excision for mid and low-rectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Panteleimonitis S, et al. Robotic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study. Int J Color Dis. 2018;33(8):1079–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sammour T, et al. Oncological outcomes after robotic Proctectomy for rectal Cancer: analysis of a prospective database. Ann Surg. 2018;267(3):521–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Colombo PE, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic Total Mesorectal excision (TME) for sphincter-saving surgery: is there any difference in the Transanal TME rectal approach?: a single-center series of 120 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(5):1594–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rouanet P, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic Total Mesorectal excision for sphincter-saving surgery: results of a single-center series of 400 consecutive patients and perspectives. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(12):3572–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zelhart M, Kaiser AM. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(1):24–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marecik S, Park JJ. Promising times in rectal cancer treatment. Curr Med Res Pract. 2017;7:39–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Park YA, et al. Totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer: from splenic flexure to pelvic floor in one setup. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(3):715–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Baek JH, et al. Oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):882–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Luca F, et al. Full robotic left colon and rectal cancer resection: technique and early outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1274–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Choi DJ, et al. Single-stage totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer surgery: technique and short-term outcome in 50 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(11):1824–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Commission on Cancer. National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer Standards Manual. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/naprc/standards. 2017.

  37. Agcaoglu O, et al. Malfunction and failure of robotic systems during general surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(12):3580–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Buchs NC, et al. Reliability of robotic system during general surgical procedures in a university hospital. Am J Surg. 2014;207(1):84–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Odermatt M, et al. Prior experience in laparoscopic rectal surgery can minimise the learning curve for robotic rectal resections: a cumulative sum analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(10):4067–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Koh DC, Tsang CB, Kim SH. A new application of the four-arm standard da Vinci(R) surgical system: totally robotic-assisted left-sided colon or rectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(6):1945–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ahmed J, Panteleimonitis S, Parvaiz A. Modular approach for single docking robotic colorectal surgery. J Vis Surg. 2016;2:109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ahmed J, et al. Standardized technique for single-docking robotic rectal surgery. Color Dis. 2016;18(10):0380–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Toh JWT, et al. Totally robotic single docking low anterior resection for rectal cancer: pearls and pitfalls. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21(11):893–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Toh JWT, Kim SH. Port positioning and docking for single-stage totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer surgery with the Si and Xi Da Vinci surgical system. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(3):545–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Petz W, et al. Structured training and competence assessment in colorectal robotic surgery. Results of a consensus experts round table. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(4):634–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ahmed J, et al. Three-step standardized approach for complete mobilization of the splenic flexure during robotic rectal cancer surgery. Color Dis. 2016;18(5):0171–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Panteleimonitis S, et al. Implementation of robotic rectal surgery training programme: importance of standardisation and structured training. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Morelli L, et al. Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and xi in a single surgeon’s experience. Surg Endosc. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Velchuru VR, et al. Obesity increases the risk of postoperative peripheral neuropathy after minimally invasive colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(2):187–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Marecik SJ, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Pearl RK, Evenhouse RJ, Shah A, et al. A lifelike patient simulator for teaching robotic colorectal surgery: how to acquire skills for robotic rectal dissection. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(8):1876–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Melich G, Pai A, Shoela R, Kochar K, Patel S, Park J, et al. Rectal dissection simulator for da Vinci surgery: details of simulator manufacturing with evidence of construct, face, and content validity. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(4):514–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. DeSouza A, Domajnko B, Park J, et al. Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy? Surg Endosc. 2011;25(4):1031–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Choi GS, Park IJ, Kang BM, Lim KH, Jun SH. A novel approach of robotic-assisted anterior resection with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of the specimen for colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(12):2831–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kinugasa Y, Murakami G, Suzuki D, Sugihara K. Histological identification of fascial structures posterolateral to the rectum. Br J Surg. 2007;94(5):620–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Marecik SJ, Pai A, Sheikh T, Park JJ, Prasad LM. Transanal Total Mesorectal excision: save the nerves and urethra. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(7):e410–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Marecik SJ, Zawadzki M, Desouza AL, Park JJ, Abcarian H, Prasad LM. Robotic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection with transabdominal levator transection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(10):1320–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pai A, Eftaiha SM, Melich G, Park JJ, Lin PK, Prasad LM, Marecik SJ. Robotic site adjusted Levator transection for carcinoma of the rectum: a modification of the existing cylindrical abdominoperineal resection for eccentrically located tumors. World J Surg. 2017;41(2):590–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Patriti A, et al. Short- and medium-term outcome of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic rectal resection. JSLS. 2009;13(2):176–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Baik SH, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(6):1480–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kim JY, et al. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(8):2485–93. Epub 2012 Mar 21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Slawomir Marecik

  2. Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, USA

    Slawomir Marecik & Kunal Kochar

  3. Department of Surgery, Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Park Ridge, IL, USA

    John Park

Authors
  1. Slawomir Marecik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kunal Kochar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slawomir Marecik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Advanced Thoracic Surgery, Global Robotics Institute Advent Health Celebration, Celebration, FL, USA

    Farid Gharagozloo

  2. Global Robotics Institute, Advent Health Celebration, Celebration, FL, USA

    Vipul R. Patel

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti

  4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Three Crosses Regional Hospital, Las Cruces, NM, USA

    Robert Poston

  5. Department of Surgery, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Rainer Gruessner

  6. Department of Surgery, Wellington Regional Medical Center, Wellington, FL, USA

    Mark Meyer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marecik, S., Kochar, K., Park, J. (2021). Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer. In: Gharagozloo, F., Patel, V.R., Giulianotti, P.C., Poston, R., Gruessner, R., Meyer, M. (eds) Robotic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53594-0_137

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53594-0_137

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-53593-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-53594-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation