Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 423 Downloads
Few studies have compared robotic and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) in rectal cancer. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of recently published studies to compare perioperative outcomes of ISR for the treatment of low rectal cancer.
We performed a systematic literature search of the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic ISR in patients with low rectal cancer. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Perioperative outcomes of interest included the rate of diverting stoma, open conversion rate, operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, and time to initiate the postoperative diet. Oncological outcomes included the number of retrieved lymph nodes, distal resection margin, proximal resection margin, circumferential resection margin, 3-year overall survival, 3-year disease-free survival, and local recurrence. Postoperative complications included overall complications, a Dindo-Clavien classification ≥ III, and anastomotic leakage. All outcomes were compared between the two groups.
We included 5 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 510 patients undergoing 273 (53.5%) robotic ISR procedures and 237 (46.5%) laparoscopic ISR procedures. The robotic ISR group lower conversion rate, lower blood loss, and longer operation times than the laparoscopic group. We also noted that fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the robotic ISR group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Other outcomes were similar between the two groups.
Robotic and laparoscopic ISR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and 3-year oncologic outcomes; however, robotic ISR was associated with a lower conversion rate and less blood loss despite longer operation times compared to laparoscopic ISR. These findings suggest that robotic ISR maybe a safe and effective technique for treating low rectal cancer in selected patients. The potential oncologic and functional benefits of robotic ISR should be evaluated in larger randomized controlled trials.
KeywordsIntersphincteric resection Meta-analysis Rectal cancer Robotic surgery
This research was supported by the Hallym University Research Fund (HURF-2016-07).
Compliance with ethical standards
We the authors, Drs. Lee Seon Heui, Kim Dong Hyun, and Lim Sang Woo, have complied with all applicable ethical standards.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang SB, Lim SB, Choi HS, Kim DW, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Jung KH, Kim TY, Kang GH, Chie EK, Kim SY, Sohn DK, Kim DH, Kim JS, Lee HS, Kim JH, Oh JH (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15(7):767–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70205-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, Davies L, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1356–1363. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.12009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Kang J, Yoon KJ, Min BS, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, Lee KY (2013) 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 257(1):95–101. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182686bbd CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH (2012) 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 19(8):2485–2493. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2262-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kuo LJ, Lin YK, Chang CC, Tai CJ, Chiou JF, Chang YJ (2014) Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for robotic surgery. Int J Color Dis 29(5):555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Lim S, Kim JH, Baek SJ, Kim SH, Lee SH (2016) Comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Treat Res 90(6):328–339. https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2016.90.6.328 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 25.Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J (2017) 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 318(16):1569–1580. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7219 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 29.D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P, Alfano G (2013) Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27(6):1887–1895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2731-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares M, Diaz-Pavon JM, Reyes-Diaz ML, Vazquez-Monchul JM, Garcia-Cabrera AM, Padillo J, De la Portilla F (2016) Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(12):1807–1815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2660-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Compton CC, Fielding LP, Burgart LJ, Conley B, Cooper HS, Hamilton SR, Hammond ME, Henson DE, Hutter RV, Nagle RB, Nielsen ML, Sargent DJ, Taylor CR, Welton M, Willett C (2000) Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124(7):979–994. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-9985(2000)124<0979:PFICC>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Sobin LH, Greene FL (2001) TNM classification: clarification of number of regional lymph nodes for pNo. Cancer 92(2):452. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010715)92:2<452::AID-CNCR1342>3.0.CO;2-B CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Park SY, Choi GS, Park JS, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP, Yun SH (2014) Urinary and erectile function in men after total mesorectal excision by laparoscopic or robot-assisted methods for the treatment of rectal cancer: a case-matched comparison. World J Surg 38(7):1834–1842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2419-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY, Yang CS, Lee HJ (2018) The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery. Color Dis 20(5):O103–O113. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Kim J, Baek SJ, Kang DW, Roh YE, Lee JW, Kwak HD, Kwak JM, Kim SH (2017) Robotic resection is a good prognostic factor in rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic resection: long-term survival analysis using propensity score matching. Dis Colon rectum 60(3):266–273. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000770