Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the short-term efficacy of two types of robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The advantages and disadvantages of robotic technology compared with conventional surgery for low rectal cancer have been discussed extensively. However, a few studies on the efficacy of total mesorectal excision (TME) with different robotic technologies have been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of two types of robot-assisted TME (R-TME) compared with laparoscopic TME (L-TME).

Methods

A prospective comparative study was conducted comparing da Vinci R-TME, Micro Hand S R-TME, and L-TME for rectal cancer. This study was registered with “Clinicaltrials.gov” (ID: NCT02752698) and approved by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Program (AAHRPP) (Project number: T16007). Between January 2017 and May 2019, patients with rectal cancer (cT1-3NxM0) were prospectively registered in the Third Xiangya Hospital. The integrity of the TME sample served as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the involvement of the circumferential and distal resection margins (CRM and DRM), number of lymph nodes retrieved, blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, comprehensive complication index score, the International Prostate Symptom score, the International Index of Erectile Function, and the Female Sexual Function Index.

Results

Of 134 patients with rectal cancer (74 males, mean age [SD] 59.1 ± 8.27 years), 46 patients underwent laparoscopic TME, 45 patients underwent da Vinci R-TME, and 43 patients underwent Micro Hand S R-TME. There were no differences in results between the two types of R-TME. Compared with laparoscopic TME, significant reductions in blood loss (median 65.50 ml da Vinci; median 66.54 ml Micro Hand S vs median 95.04 ml L-TME p = 0.037 and p = 0.041, respectively) and conversion rate (2.2% da Vinci; 2.3% Micro Hand S vs 6.8% L-TME p = 0,040 for the comparison daVinci L-TME and p = 0.038 for the comparison Micro Hand S vs. L-TME) with da Vinci Si and Micro Hand S R-TME were noted, and significant increases in operation time (230.05 min da Vinci; 235.03 min Micro Hand S vs. 205.53 min L-TME p = 0.045 and p = 0.043, respectively) was observed. Additionally, more patients underwent TME with sphincter-preserving methods in the two R-TME groups based on the type of operation (da Vinci 97.7%; Micro Hand S 97.9% vs. L-TME 82% resulting in  p = 0.033 for the comparison daVinci L-TME and p = 0.035 for the comparison Micro Hand S vs. L-TME). In comparison with L-TME, there was a larger number of lymph nodes retrieved (da Vinci mean 17.54; Micro Hand S mean 17.32 vs. L-TME mean 14.96 p = 0.031 for the comparison daVinci L-TME and p = 0.033 for the comparison Micro Hand S vs L-TME) and less blood loss (da Vinci mean 65.50 ml; Micro Hand S mean 66.54 ml vs. L-TME mean 95.04 ml, p = 0.037 for the comparison daVinci L-TME and p = 0.041 for the comparison Micro Hand S vs. L-TME), and incidence of severe postoperative complications was similar among three TME groups except for the earlier recovery of urogenital function (mean IPSS score da Vinci 7.73±1.35; Micro Hand S7.75±1.47 vs L-TME 14.26±1.41 p<0.001 for the comparison da Vinci L-TME and p<0.001 for the comparison Microhand S vs L-TME) in the two R-TME groups.

Conclusions

In our study, compared with laparoscopic surgery, da Vinci or Micro Hand R-TME exhibited similar superiority in the quality of oncologic resection, postoperative morbidity, and recovery of postoperative function.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffiffiffin NJ, Parsons W, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP (2002) Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 235(4):449–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery: the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69:613–616

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rickles AS, Dietz DW, Chang GJ et al (2015) High rate of positive circumferential resection margins following rectal cancer surgery: a call to action. Ann Surg 262:891–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wai LL, Dominic C, Foo C (2017) Comparison of short-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic resection for mid- and distal rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 31:2798–2807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Allemann P, Duvoisin C, Di Mare L et al (2016) Robotic-assisted surgery improves the quality of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopy: results of a case-controlled analysis. World J Surg 40:1010–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Min JK, Sung CP, Ji WP, Hee JC, Dae YK, Byung-Ho N, Dae KS, Jae HO (2018) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a phase II open label prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267:243–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs. open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1346–1355

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience[J]. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bo Yi, Wang G, Li J et al (2016) The first clinical use of domestically produced Chinese minimally invasive surgical robot system “Micro Hand S.” Surg Endosc 30(6):2649–2655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bo Y, Guohui W, Zheng L, Liyong Z, Pengzhou L, Weizheng L, Zhi S, Shaihong Z, Jianmin L (2020) The future of robotic surgery in safe hands. Nat Res. https://www.nature.com/collections/ThirdXiangyaHospital.

  11. Yuanbing Y, Yong L, Zheng L, Bo Y, Guohui W, Shaihong Z (2020) Chinese surgical robot micro hand S: a consecutive case series in general surgery. Internat J Surg 75:55–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Law WL, Lee YM, Choi HK, Seto CL, Ho JW (2006) Laparoscopic and open anterior resection for upper and mid rectal cancer: an evaluation of outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1108–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mohamed ZK, Law WL (2014) Outcome of tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the impact of laparoscopic resection. World J Surg 38:2168–2174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoo B-E, Cho J-S, Shin J-W, Lee D-W, Kwak J-M, Kim J, Kim S-H (2015) Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison of the operative, oncological, and functional outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 22:1219–1225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tang B, Zhang C, Li C et al (2017) Robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a series of 392 cases and mid-term outcomes from a single center in China. J Gastrointest Surg 21:569–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang W, Li J, Wang S, He Su, Jiang X (2016) System design and animal experiment study of a novel minimally invasive surgical robot. Internat J Med Robot Comput Ass Surg 12:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kong K, Li J, Zhang H, Li J, Wang S (2016) Kinematic design of a generalized double parallelogram based RCM mechanism for minimally invasive surgical robot. Transact ASME J Med Dev 10(4):041006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pigazzi A (2015) Results of robotic vs. laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: ROLARR Study-verbal presentation: American society of colon and rectal surgeons annual scientific meeting

  19. David J, Alessio P, Helen M, Julie C, Neil C, Joanne C, Phil Q, Nick W, Tero R, Niels T, Henry T, Mark G, Paolo PB, Richard E, Claire H, Julia B (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Park IJ, You YN, Schlette E et al (2012) Reverse-hybrid robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 55:228–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Min-Hoe C, Yu-Ting Y, Evan L, Francis S-C (2016) Pelvic autonomic nerve preservation in radical rectal cancer surgery:changes in the past 3 decades. Gastroenterol Rep 4(3):173–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No: 51875580) and National Key Research and Development Plan Fund (Grant No: 2017YFC0110402).

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of General Surgery, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, Hunan, People’s Republic of China

      Yang Lei, Juan Jiang, Shaihong Zhu & Bo Yi

    2. Tianjin University, Tianjin, People’s Republic of China

      Jianmin Li

    Authors
    1. Yang Lei
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Juan Jiang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Shaihong Zhu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Bo Yi
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Jianmin Li
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Contributions

    SZ developed the study concept and design. BY performed all operations. YL drafted the manuscript and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. JL, GW, ZL, and JJ performed the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Bo Yi.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of interest

    All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

    Additional information

    Publisher's Note

    Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

    Yang Lei and Juan Jiang are the co-first authors.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Lei, Y., Jiang, J., Zhu, S. et al. Comparison of the short-term efficacy of two types of robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 26, 19–28 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-021-02546-0

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-021-02546-0

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation