Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 13, pp 3906–3912 | Cite as

Long-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

  • Ismail PinarEmail author
  • Tina Fransgaard
  • Lau C. Thygesen
  • Ismail Gögenur
Colorectal Cancer



Robotic technology has been proven to be a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy with regards to the peri- and postoperative clinical outcomes. Oncological outcomes have been scarcely examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the disease-free survival in relation to the two surgical approaches: robot-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopy. In addition, all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were investigated.


Between January 2010 and December 2015, patients, undergoing either laparoscopic or robot-assisted elective, curative-intended surgery for colorectal cancer were included.


A total of 9184 patients underwent surgery in the study period: 5978 patients for colon cancer and 3206 patients for rectal cancer. Among patients with colon cancer, 331 patients (5.5%) underwent robot-assisted surgery, and 449 patients (14.0%) underwent robot-assisted surgery in the rectal cancer group. In the adjusted analyses, the hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival, for patients with colon cancer was 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–1.18]. For patients with rectal cancer, the adjusted HR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65–1.06). No difference in all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were observed.


The study demonstrated comparable rates of disease-free survival, all-cause mortality, and recurrence-free survival when comparing robot-assisted surgery with conventional laparoscopy in patients with colorectal cancer.



The work was supported by an unlimited grant from Intuitive Surgical Inc. The company had no influence on the design or conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. I. Gögenur received an unrestricted research grant from Intuitive and travel grant for advisory board meeting.


  1. 1.
    Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Crawford DL. Telerobotic surgery for right and sigmoid colectomies: 30 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1713–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stylopoulos N, Rattner D. Robotics and ergonomics. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83:1321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg. 2001;25:1467–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic approach in colonic resections for cancer and benign diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0134062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tyler JA, Fox JP, Desai MM, Perry WB, Glasgow SC. Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:458–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3727–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Marecik SJ, Blumetti J, Abcarian H. Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:1000–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1219–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim J, Baek SJ, Kang DW, et al. 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. 2017;60:266–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lim DR, Bae SU, Hur H, 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;31:1728–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilder FG, Burnett A, Oliver J, Demyen MF, Chokshi RJ. A review of the long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Indian J Surg. 2016;78:214–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cho MS, Baek SJ, Hur H, et al. Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94:e522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;261:129–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Danish Colorectal Cancer Group yearly report (2014). Accessed 1 May 2018.
  15. 15.
    Thygesen LC, Daasnes C, Thaulow I, Bronnum-Hansen H. Introduction to Danish (nationwide) registers on health and social issues: structure, access, legislation, and archiving. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:12–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pedersen CB, Gotzsche H, Moller JO, Mortensen PB. The Danish Civil Registration System. A cohort of eight million persons. Dan Med Bull. 2006;53:441–9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:30–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lash TL, Riis AH, Ostenfeld EB, Erichsen R, Vyberg M, Thorlacius-Ussing O. A validated algorithm to ascertain colorectal cancer recurrence using registry resources in Denmark. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:2210–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:W163–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lim DR, Min BS, Kim MS, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer: comparative study of long-term oncologic outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1379–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, et al. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2009;373:821–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, 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;318:1569–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fransgaard T, Pinar I, Thygesen LC, Gögenur I. Association between robot-assisted surgery and resection quality in patients with colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol. 2018;27:177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tam MS, Kaoutzanis C, Mullard AJ, et al. A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryZealand University HospitalKøgeDenmark
  2. 2.National Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Institute for Clinical MedicineCopenhagen University and Danish Colorectal Cancer GroupCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations