Limited data exists on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after robot-assisted surgery (RAL) for rectal cancer beyond one-year post-surgery. This study compares long-term HRQoL following RAL total mesorectal excision (TME) to conventional laparoscopic (CL) TME.

All rectal carcinoma patients from the 63-center Prospective National CRC cohort (PLCRC) who completed pre- and post-operative HRQoL questionnaires (EQ-5D, QLQ-C30, and QLQ-CR29) were retrospectively included. Delta scores per parameter were calculated by subtracting pre-operative scores from scores at one year. Sensitivity analysis included all patients with beyond one-year post-operative questionnaires, regardless of a pre-operative questionnaire. Data were analyzed using multivariate linear regression.

Patients undergoing RAL TME more often had low rectal tumors, more post-operative complications and more stomas. In patients with both pre- and post-operative questionnaires, no significant differences were found in the EQ-5D delta score (n = 591). The QLQ-C30 (n = 709) showed statistically significant and clinical relevant difference in fatigue favored CL TME (4.4 ± 1.9, p = 0.021). The QLQ-CR29 (n = 696) showed small, statistically significant differences favoring RAL in body image and stoma-related issues, but no clinical relevance. Sensitivity analysis EQ-5D (n = 1250), QLQ-C30 (n = 1423) or QLQ-CR29 (n = 1453) showed no clinically relevant differences.

This is the first study comparing long-term HRQoL between CL and RAL surgery for rectal cancer. Although several statistically significant differences were found, no clinically relevant differences were observed except for a small difference in the subdomain fatigue of the EORTC QLQ-C30 favoring CL surgery. Furthermore, the current study underlines the relevance of a pre-operative HRQoL assessment.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery has been introduced to reduce the difficulty and complications of the procedure. This study aims to assess the learning curve for robotic rectal cancer of individual surgeons with extensive laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery through multidimensional analyses.

Data were retrospectively collected on 156 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer surgery by a single surgeon between January 2018 and December 2023.

The operative time required for LAR can be divided into three distinct phases: an early or learning phase (1-24 cases), an intermediate or proficient phase (25-55 cases), and a late or mastery phase (56-72 cases). The study found that the learning curve for LAR and protective operative time can be divided into three distinct phases: an early or learning phase (1 to 15 cases), an intermediate or proficient phase (16 to 40 cases), and a late or mastery stage (41 to 63 cases). Following the completion of 46 cases of surgery, the next stage of the learning curve for lymph nodes retrieval has been reached. The discrepancy between the mean number of lymph nodes retrieved in each of the three stages was marginal, with an difference of 0.5 between the lowest and highest values observed (14.1 vs. 13.6 vs. 13.7). The length of hospital stay for patients decreases as the surgeon gains more experience, reaching a mean of 10.3 days in 2023.

This study shows that robotic surgery for rectal cancer has a significant learning curve with multiple stages. Robotic surgery can remove more lymph nodes than recommended by guidelines even during the learning phase (recommend that at least 12 lymph nodes should be retrieved). As the learning curve progresses to the mastery phase, the length of postoperative hospital stays gradually decreases to a lower level.

Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision has been proposed as an alternative to laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer. However, its short-term outcomes and long-term oncological efficacy remain debated, especially in Western populations. This study evaluates the short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume European centres.

This multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study included 1390 patients from the EUREKA collaborative dataset who underwent robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between January 2013 and January 2022. All surgeries were performed by expert surgeons beyond the learning curve. Data were analysed for patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, pathological findings, and three-year survival metrics. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate overall and disease-free survival.

Of 1390 patients, 60.6% underwent restorative low anterior resection. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 3.7%, and postoperative complications were reported in 28.7%. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 14.7% of patients who underwent restorative low anterior resection. The median operative time was 223 min. R0 resection was achieved in 94.7%, and circumferential resection margin positivity was 5.5%. Three-year overall survival was 90.1%, disease-free survival was 88.6%, and local recurrence was 2.9%.

Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume European centres is safe, with low conversion rates, acceptable complication rates, and favourable oncological outcomes. These findings underscore the potential of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision as a standard approach for rectal cancer in specialised settings.

Evidence of superiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal resections remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques in high-risk patients undergoing resections for colorectal cancer.

Systematic searches were performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library databases from inception until December 2024. Randomised and non-randomised studies reporting outcomes of robotic-assisted or laparoscopic resections in the following high-risk categories were included: obesity, male gender, the elderly, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and previous abdominal surgery. Comparative meta-analyses for all sufficiently reported outcomes were completed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools for non-randomised and randomised studies, respectively.

48 studies, including a total of 34,846 patients were eligible for inclusion and 32 studies were utilised in the comparative meta-analyses. Conversion to open rates were significantly lower for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity, male patients and patients with low rectal tumours (obese OR 0.41 [CI 0.32-0.51], p < 0.00001); male gender (OR 0.28 [CI 0.22-0.34], p < 0.00001); low tumours OR 0.10 [CI 0.02-0.58], p = 0.01). Length of stay was significantly reduced for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity (SMD 0.25 [CI - 0.41 to - 0.09], p = 0.002). Operative time was significantly longer in all subgroups (obesity SMD 0.57 [CI 0.31-0.83], p < 0.0001; male gender SMD 0.77 [CI 0.17-1.37], p = 0.01; elderly SMD 0.50 [CI 0.18-0.83], p = 0.002; low rectal tumours SMD 0.48 [CI 0.12-0.84], p = 0.008; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy SMD 0.72 [CI 0.34-1.09], p = 0.0002; previous surgery SMD 1.55 [CI 0.05-3.06], p = 0.04). When calculable, blood loss, length of stay, complication rate and lymph node yield were comparable in all subgroups.

This review provides further evidence of non-inferiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer and demonstrates conversion rates are superior in specific, technically challenging operations.

Rectal cancer is a major global health issue with high morbidity and mortality rates. Local recurrence (LR) significantly impacts patient outcomes, decreasing survival rates and often necessitating extensive secondary treatments. While robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (R-TME) is becoming a preferred method for rectal cancer surgery due to its improved precision and visualisation, long-term data on LR and predictors of recurrence remain limited. This study aims to determine the 3-year LR rate following R-TME and to identify predictors of recurrence to enhance patient selection and the personalisation of treatment.

This retrospective international multicentre cohort study included 1039 consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME between 2013 and 2020, with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. Data from tertiary colorectal centres in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, France, Italy, and Belgium were analysed. Potential predictors of LR were identified using backward elimination, and four machine learning models were evaluated for predicting LR.

The 3-year LR rate was 3.8%. Significant predictors of LR included advanced clinical M-staging, length of the hospital stay, postoperative ileus, postoperative complications, pathological N-staging, the completeness of resection, and the resection margin distance. The eXtreme Gradient Boosting model performed best for LR prediction, with a final accuracy of 77.1% and an AUC of 0.76.

R-TME in high-volume centres achieves low 3-year LR rates, suggesting that robot-assisted surgery offers oncological safety and advantages in rectal cancer management. This study underscores the importance of surgical precision, patient selection, and standardised perioperative care, supporting further investment in robotic training to improve long-term patient outcomes.

This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and functional outcomes of DA Vinci (Xi)-assisted surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer, focusing on oncologic cure and functional preservation.

Between December 2020 and June 2021, 102 patients with middle and low rectal cancer (tumour lower margin ≤10 cm) were enrolled at the affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University. Participants were divided into two groups: robot-assisted (n = 51) and laparoscopy-assisted (n = 51). Each group underwent a radical resection using their assigned method. Clinical and functional outcomes were analysed post-surgery.

Preoperative data did not differ significantly between groups (P > 0.05). All surgeries were successfully completed without conversion to open surgery. The robotic group experienced significantly less intraoperative blood loss (55.2 ± 29.8 mL vs. 109.5 ± 58.5 mL) and faster recovery in gastrointestinal function (35.1 ± 9.4 h vs. 40.7 ± 1.9 h), diet recovery (2.1 ± 0.8 days vs. 2.9 ± 0.4 days), and catheter removal (2.9 ± 2.7 days vs. 5.3 ± 2.1 days). The robotic group also dissected more lymph nodes (23 ± 6 vs. 15 ± 4). However, they had longer operative times (239.8 ± 29.6 min vs. 141.1 ± 18.5 min) and higher hospital costs. Satisfaction levels regarding defecation, voiding, and sexual functions were notably higher in the robotic group.

No significant differences in surgical safety or immediate postoperative outcomes were observed between robotic and laparoscopic approaches. However, robotic surgery demonstrated superior lymph node dissection, anal function preservation, and gastrointestinal recovery, enhancing overall functional outcomes.

Rigid surgical instruments limit movement whereas articulated instruments offer better control in small spaces and allow for intuitive and ergonomic movements. However, the effectiveness of the use of articulated instruments in improving colorectal laparoscopic outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this work was to determine whether colorectal laparoscopic surgical proficiency improved when multijoint instruments were used instead of conventional ones.

We enrolled 70 consecutive patients (n = 20 for conventional instruments) aged 19-80 years who underwent elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal diseases. Unedited surgery videos were validated using the modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (mGOALS) scale. Learning curves were analysed using a cumulative sum control chart for mGOALS grades.

The surgery type, length of hospital stay and 30-day postoperative complication rates were comparable between the groups, and the surgeon's mGOALS grades were similar (p = 0.190). However, in the articulated group, the scores were significantly higher for depth perception (p = 0.012) and tissue-handling domains (p = 0.046), while surgical duration was significantly shorter and intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower (p = 0.022), compared with those in the conventional (p = 0.002) group. Learning curve findings indicated that the first 10 and subsequent 40 surgeries in the articulated group were within the inexperienced and experienced phases, respectively. The mGOALS score in the experienced phase improved in the articulated group compared with that in the conventional group (p = 0.036).

The use of articulated instruments in laparoscopic colorectal surgery showed potential benefits. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

To investigate the incidence and factors influencing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical resection for colorectal cancer and assess their health and economic impact on the patients and hospital.

This retrospective case-controlled study comprised patients who underwent robot-assisted radical resection for colorectal cancer at a tertiary hospital in China. Information about baseline characteristics, perioperative details, postoperative SSI incidence, hospitalization costs, and follow-up was collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the independent risk factors for SSI. Propensity score matching was used to evaluate the health and economic impacts of SSI on the patients and the hospital.

The overall incidence of colorectal SSI in 546 patients undergoing robot-assisted radical resection for colorectal cancer was 11.72% (64/546). Intraoperative blood loss, duration of operation, preoperative absolute lymphocyte count, preoperative and postoperative serum albumin levels, tumor location, gender, history of radiotherapy or chemotherapy, surgical wound classification, and preoperative hypoalbuminemia levels were associated with SSI. Rectal cancer, male gender, and class 3 or 4 surgical wounds were identified as independent risk factors for postoperative SSI. SSI prolonged the hospital stay by 6.60 days, increased the patient's direct costs by 31,669.88 CNY, increased the economic burden by 3,262.38 CNY, and caused an indirect economic loss of 50,546.79 CNY for the hospital.

Patients undergoing robot-assisted radical resection for colorectal cancer are at a high risk for SSI. SSI can prolong postoperative hospital stays and increase the economic burden for patients and hospitals.

The preservation of the left colic artery (LCA) during rectal cancer resection remains a topic of controversy, and there is a notable absence of robust evidence regarding the outcomes associated with LCA preservation. And the advantages of robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) surgery in rectal resection remain uncertain. The objective of this study was to assess the influence of LCA preservation surgery and RAL surgery on intraoperative and postoperative complications of rectal cancer resection. Patients who underwent laparoscopic (LSC) or RAL with or without LCA preservation resection for rectal cancer between April 2020 and May 2023 were retrospectively assessed. The patients were categorized into two groups: low ligation (LL) which with preservation of LCA and high ligation (HL) which without preservation of LCA. A one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was operative findings, operative morbidity, and postoperative genitourinary function. A total of 612 patients were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 139 patients in each group. The blood loss of the LL group was significantly less than that of the HL group (54.42 ± 12.99 mL vs. 65.71 ± 7.37 mL, p<0.001). The urinary catheter withdrawal time in the LL group was significantly shorter than that in the HL group (4.87 ± 2.04 d vs. 6.06 ± 2.43d, p<0.001). Anastomotic leakage in the LL group was significantly lower than that in HL group (1.44% vs. 7.91%, p = 0.011). The rate of urinary dysfunction and sexual dysfunction in LL group is both significantly lower than HL group. Blood loss and number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs) of both RAL subgroups in LL and HL groups were significantly more than that in LSC subgroups. The anastomotic leakage in the RAL subgroup of HL group was significantly lower than that in LSC subgroup (0% vs. 14.89%, p = 0.018). LCA preservation surgery for rectal cancer may help reduce the blood loss, urinary catheter withdrawal time, the rate of anastomotic leakage and ileus, and postoperative genitourinary function outcomes. RAL can reduce the probability of blood loss and improve harvest LNs in patients with rectal cancer.

IPAA has become the criterion standard for treating ulcerative colitis, familial adenomatous polyposis, and selected cases of Crohn's colitis. Robotic surgery promises improved postoperative outcomes and decreased length of stay. However, few studies have evaluated the benefits of robotic IPAA compared to laparoscopy.

To compare short-term 30-day postoperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy.

Retrospective observational study from a single, high-volume center.

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (tertiary referral center for IBD).

All adult patients undergoing minimally invasive proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy between January 2015 and April 2023.

Thirty-day complications, hospital length of stay, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, 30-day readmission, and 30-day reoperation.

Two hundred seventeen patients were included in the study; 107 underwent robotic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy, whereas 110 had laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy. Operating time was significantly longer in the robotic group (263 ± 38 vs 228 ± 75 minutes, p < 0.0001). The robotic group also had lower estimated blood loss (81.5 ± 77.7 vs 126.8 ± 111.0 mL, p = 0.0006) as well as fewer conversions (0% vs 8.2%, p = 0.003). Patients in the robotic group received more intraoperative fluids (3099 ± 1140 vs 2472 ± 996 mL, p = 0.0001). However, there was no difference in length of stay, 30-day morbidity, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, rate of diverting loop ileostomy closure at 3 months, and surgical IPAA complication rate after ileostomy closure.

Retrospective design, single-center study, potential bias because of the novelty of the robotic approach, and lack of long-term and quality-of-life outcomes.

Robotic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy may offer advantages in terms of estimated blood loss and conversion rate while maintaining the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. See Video Abstract .

ANTECEDENTES:La anastomosis anal-bolsa ileal (IPAA) se ha convertido en el estándar de oro para el tratamiento de la colitis ulcerosa, la poliposis adenomatosa familiar y casos seleccionados de colitis de Crohn. La cirugía robótica promete mejores resultados posoperatorios y una menor duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Sin embargo, pocos estudios han evaluado los beneficios de la IPAA robótica en comparación con la laparoscopia.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados postoperatorios a corto plazo a 30 días de la proctectomía robótica versus laparoscópica con IPAA e ileostomía en asa de derivación.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional retrospectivo de un único centro de gran volumen.AJUSTES:Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (centro terciario de referencia para EII).PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes adultos sometidos a proctectomía mínimamente invasiva con IPAA y DLI entre Enero de 2015 y Abril de 2023.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Complicaciones a los 30 días, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, pérdida de sangre estimada, tasa de conversión, reingreso a los 30 días y reoperación a los 30 días.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron en el estudio 217 pacientes; 107 se sometieron a proctectomía robótica con IPAA y DLI, mientras que 110 se sometieron a proctectomía laparoscópica con IPAA y DLI. El tiempo operatorio fue significativamente mayor en el grupo robótico (263 ± 38 minutos versus 228 ± 75 minutos, p < 0,0001); la pérdida de sangre estimada (EBL) fue menor en el grupo robótico (81,5 ± 77,7 ml versus 126,8 ± 111,0 ml, p = 0,0006), así como el número de conversiones (0% versus 8,2%, p = 0,003). Los pacientes del grupo robótico recibieron más líquidos intraoperatorios (3099 ± 1140 ml versus 2472 ± 996 ml, p = 0,0001). Sin embargo, no hubo diferencias en la duración de la estancia hospitalaria, la morbilidad a los 30 días, el reingreso a los 30 días, la reoperación a los 30 días, la tasa de cierre del DLI a los tres meses y la tasa de complicaciones quirúrgicas de la IPAA después del cierre de la ileostomía.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, estudio unicéntrico, posible sesgo debido a la novedad del enfoque robótico, falta de resultados a largo plazo y de calidad de vida.CONCLUSIONES:La proctectomía robótica con IPAA y DLI puede ofrecer ventajas en términos de EBL y tasa de conversión, manteniendo al mismo tiempo los beneficios de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva. Se necesita más investigación para evaluar los resultados a largo plazo. (Traducción-Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Robotic-assisted complete mesorectal excision (RATME) is increasingly being used by colorectal surgeons. Most surgeons consider RATME a safe method, and believe it can facilitate total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer, and may potentially have advantages over intersphincteric resection (ISR) and anus preservation. Therefore, this trial was designed to investigate whether RATME has technical advantages and can increase the ISR rate compared with laparoscopic-assisted TME (LATME) in patients with middle and low rectal cancer.

This is a multicenter, superiority, randomized controlled trial designed to compare RATME and LATME in middle and low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint is the ISR rate. The secondary endpoints are coloanal anastomosis (CAA) rate, conversion to open surgery, conversion to transanal TME (TaTME), abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate, postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days, pathological outcomes, long-term survival outcomes, functional outcomes, and quality of life. In addition, certain measurements will be conducted to ensure quality and safety, including centralized photography review and semiannual assessment.

This trial will clarify if RATME improves ISR and promotes anus preservation in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer. Furthermore, this trial will provide evidence on the optimal treatment strategies for RATME and LATME in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer regarding improved operational safety.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06105203. Registered on October 27, 2023.

The purpose of this study and meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of robotic NOSE versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal tumors. We plan to perform an extensive electronic search on PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases until July 2024 that examine the comparison between robotic natural orifice specimen extraction and laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal cancer. Both English and Chinese literature will be included. Literature screening will strictly follow predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will be conducted with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Review Manager 5.4.1 will be utilized to perform a meta-analysis of data gathered from the studies that are included. The ultimate evaluation included seven past cohort studies with a total of 1117 participants (545 who had robotic NOSE and 572 who had laparoscopic surgery). Patients who had robotic NOSE experienced notable enhancements in LOHS, time to first flatus, time to start the liquid diet, EBL, and postoperative ileus when compared to patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. There were no notable discrepancies noted in terms of surgical duration, total complications, lymph node collection, and anastomotic leakage between the two methods. In conclusion, the use of robotic technology for extracting specimens through natural body openings in colorectal surgery is considered to be safe and achievable. It offers notable advantages over laparoscopic surgery, including reduced hospital stay, earlier time to first flatus and liquid intake, decreased EBL, and lower incidence of postoperative ileus.

The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases to July 2024 that focus on patients who have undergone robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. Specifically, this review will compare NOSE with conventional TASE. Only studies published in English will be considered. Literature screening will adhere closely to predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will involve the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis of the included studies' data will be performed using Review Manager 5.4.1. In the final analysis, 9 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1571 patients were included. Out of these, 732 patients opted for NOSE, while 839 patients chose conventional TASE in robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who received TASE experienced enhancements in hospital stay duration, time until first gas passage, wound infection rates, and time until the first intake of a liquid diet. Nevertheless, there were no notable distinctions noted between the two methods regarding surgery duration, projected blood loss, intestinal blockage, or frequency of anastomotic leakage. In patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery, the safety and feasibility of NOSE are demonstrated. Compared to traditional TASE, it provides clear benefits including shorter hospital stays, earlier first flatus, quicker initiation of a liquid diet, and lower risk of wound infection.

A meta-analysis was conducted on the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer. There are few articles and reports on this topic, and a lack of high-quality research results in unreliable research conclusions. This study includes prospective and retrospective studies to obtain more reliable findings.

Databases were searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The search was conducted from the time of database construction to March 2024. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the NOS scoring system. Meta-analysis was performed using R language software. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and sensitivity analysis was performed.

Six relevant literatures that met the criteria were finally included, and 652 patients were included, including 316 (48.5%) in the robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (RLLND) and 336 (51.5%) in the laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (LLLND). Analysis of the results showed that compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less mean intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 22, 95% CI - 40.03 to - 3.97, P < 0.05), longer operative time (MD = 51.57, 95%CI 7.69 to 95.45, P < 0.05), and a shorter mean hospital stay (MD = - 1.25, 95%CI - 2.46 to - 0.05, P < 0.05), a low rate of urinary complications (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.64, P < 0.01), a low overall rate of postoperative complications (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.87, P < 0.01), and a high number of lateral lymph node dissection (MD = 1.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.23, P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative anastomotic leakage, postoperative intestinal obstruction, and total number of lymph nodes obtained (P > 0.05).

Compared with laparoscopy, robotic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, shortens the average length of hospital stay, reduces urologic complications, decreases overall postoperative complications, and collects more lateral lymph nodes. However, the surgical time is prolonged.

The absence of force feedback (FFB) is considered a technical limitation in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). This pre-clinical study aims to evaluate the forces applied to tissues using a novel integrated FFB technology, which allows surgeons to sense forces exerted at the instrument tips.

Twenty-eight surgeons with varying experience levels employed FFB instruments to perform three robotic-assisted surgical tasks, including retraction, dissection, and suturing, on inanimate or ex-vivo models, while the instrument sensors recorded and conveyed the applied forces to the surgeon hand controllers of the robotic system. Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) models were used to analyze the mean and maximal forces applied during each task with the FFB sensor at the "Off" setting compared to the "High" sensitivity setting for retraction and to the "Low", "Medium", and "High" sensitivity settings for dissection and suturing. Sub-analysis was also performed on surgeon experience levels.

The use of FFB at any of the sensitivity settings resulted in a significant reduction in both the mean and maximal forces exerted on tissue during all three robotic-assisted surgical tasks (p < 0.0001). The maximal force exerted, potentially associated with tissue damage, was decreased by 36%, 41%, and 55% with the use of FFB at the "High" sensitivity setting while performing retraction, dissection, and interrupted suturing tasks, respectively. Further, the use of FFB resulted in substantial reductions in force variance during the performance of all three types of tasks. In general, reductions in mean and maximal forces were observed among surgeons at all experience levels. The degree of force reduction depends on the sensitivity setting selected and the types of surgical tasks evaluated.

Our findings demonstrate that the utilization of FFB technology integrated in the robotic surgical system significantly reduced the forces exerted on tissue during the performance of surgical tasks at all surgeon experience levels. The reduction in the force applied and a consistency of force application achieved with FFB use, could result in decreases in tissue trauma and blood loss, potentially leading to better clinical outcomes in patients undergoing RAS. Future studies will be important to determine the impact of FFB instruments in a live clinical environment.

This study investigated the clinical effects and applicability of minimally invasive impacted teeth extraction using digital robots.

A marker was bonded to the non-surgical area before surgery. A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scan was obtained and uploaded to the robot software to determine the drilling position of the ring drill. During the surgery, the robot arm automatically navigated to a predetermined position, and the ring drill removed part of the bone tissue and exposed and extracted the impacted teeth. Finally, the surgeon tightly sutured the wounds to the surgical area.

Three minimally invasive extractions of impacted teeth with robotic assistance were performed without complications. The surgical area showed good healing during the one-month follow-up examination.

Digital robot-assisted minimally invasive extraction of impacted teeth is a highly feasible clinical procedure as it minimises trauma to the surgical area and protects the surrounding blood vessels and nerve bundles, making it a safe and valuable technique with significant potential for clinical application.

Robot-assisted surgery has been increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer resection.

The study aimed to compare the inpatient outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection in patients aged 75 years and older.

A retrospective, population-based study.

This study analyzed data from the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2018.

Patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older and who underwent robot-assisted or conventional laparoscopic resection.

Postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, and total hospital costs were assessed.

Data from 14,108 patients were analyzed. After adjustment, any postoperative complications (adjusted OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; p = 0.030) and prolonged length of stay (adjusted OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91; p = 0.001) were significantly less in the robotic than the laparoscopic group. In addition, robotic surgery was associated with significantly higher total hospital costs (26.06 USD greater cost; 95% CI, 21.35-30.77 USD; p < 0.001).

The analysis was limited by its retrospective and observational nature, potential coding errors, and the lack of intraoperative factors, such as operative time, laboratory measures, and information on surgeons' experience.

In the United States, in patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older who were undergoing tumor resections, compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery is associated with better inpatient outcomes in terms of complication rate and risk of prolonged length of stay. This finding is especially true among patients with colon cancer. However, robotic surgery is associated with higher total hospital costs. See Video Abstract .

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía asistida por robot se ha adoptado cada vez más en la resección del cáncer colorrectal.OBJETIVO:El estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar los resultados hospitalarios de la resección del cáncer colorrectal asistida por robot versus la laparoscópica convencional en pacientes ≥ 75 años.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de base poblacional.AJUSTES:Este estudio analizó datos de la Muestra Nacional de Pacientes Hospitalizados de Estados Unidos de 2005 a 2018.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años y sometidos a resección laparoscópica convencional o asistida por robot.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se evaluaron las complicaciones posoperatorias, la duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria y los costos hospitalarios totales.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron datos de 14.108 pacientes. Después del ajuste, cualquier complicación posoperatoria (aOR = 0,87; IC del 95 %: 0,77-0,99, p = 0,030) y duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria (aOR = 0,78; IC del 95 %: 0,67-0,91, p = 0,001) fueron significativamente menores en el grupo robótico que el grupo laparoscópico. Además, la cirugía robótica se asoció con costos hospitalarios totales significativamente mayores ($26,06 USD mayor costo; IC 95%: 21,35-30,77 USD, p < 0,001).LIMITACIONES:El análisis estuvo limitado por su naturaleza retrospectiva y observacional, posibles errores de codificación y la falta de factores intraoperatorios como el tiempo operatorio, medidas de laboratorio e información sobre la experiencia de los cirujanos.CONCLUSIONES:En Estados Unidos, los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años que se sometieron a resecciones tumorales, en comparación con la cirugía laparoscópica convencional, la cirugía robótica se asocia con mejores resultados hospitalarios en términos de tasa de complicaciones y riesgo de estadía prolongada, especialmente entre pacientes con cáncer de colon. Sin embargo, la cirugía robótica se asocia a costes hospitalarios totales más elevados. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Despite the global increase in the adoption of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (R-NOSES), its advantages over robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (R-TSES) for treating early-stage rectal cancer remain debated. There is scant nationwide, multicenter studies comparing the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES for this condition.

This retrospective cohort study was conducted nationally across multiple centers to compare the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES in early-stage rectal cancer.

Multicenter retrospective cohort trial.

Eight experienced surgeons from 8 high-volume Chinese colorectal cancer treatment centers.

The study included 1086 patients who underwent R-NOSES or R-TSES from October 2015 to November 2023 at the 8 centers. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma; (2) robotic total mesorectal excision; (3) postoperative pathological staging of TisN0M0 or T1-2N0M0; (4) availability of complete surgical and postoperative follow-up data. Patients were matched 1:1 in the R-NOSES and R-TSES groups using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique.

After PSM, 318 matched pairs with well-balanced patient characteristics were identified. The operation time for the R-NOSES group was significantly longer than that for the R-TSES group [140 min (125-170 min) vs. 140 min (120-160 min), P = 0.032]. Conversely, the times to first flatus and initial oral intake in the R-NOSES group were significantly shorter than those in the R-TSES group [48 h (41-56 h) vs. 48 h (44-62 h), P = 0.049 and 77 h (72-94 h) vs. 82 h (72-96 h), P = 0.008], respectively. Additionally, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the R-NOSES group compared with the R-TSES group [7 day (7-9 day) vs. 8 day (7-9 day), P = 0.005]. The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.7% in the R-NOSES group vs. 11.9% in the R-TSES group, P = 0.617). However, the R-NOSES group had a lower incidence of wound complications compared to the R-TSES group (0.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.015). Regarding surgical stress response, the R-NOSES group showed superior outcomes. Additionally, patients in the R-NOSES group required fewer additional analgesics on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5 and reported lower pain scores compared to the R-TSES group. The body image scale (BIS) and cosmetic scale (CS) scores were also significantly higher in the R-NOSES group. Furthermore, the R-NOSES group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in functional dimensions such as physical, role, emotional, social, and cognitive functioning, and in symptoms like fatigue and pain, when compared to the R-TSES group.

It is imperative to ensure the safe and standardized implementation of R-NOSES through the establishment of a uniform training protocol.

These results affirm that R-NOSES is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage rectal cancer when meticulously executed by skilled surgeons.

This study aimed to review the historical transition of rectal cancer surgery and recent evidence regarding transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Additionally, it outlined the anatomical landmarks and technical considerations essential for successful TaTME. Anatomical studies and surgical techniques were analyzed to identify key landmarks and procedural steps crucial for TaTME. TaTME offers improved visibility and maneuverability even in the deep and narrow pelvis and is expected to contribute to tumor radical cure rates. By securing the circumferential resection margin and distal margin while preserving pelvic autonomic nerve function, TaTME holds promise for maintaining postoperative urinary and sexual functions. Key anatomical landmarks include the endopelvic fascia posteriorly, the S4-pelvic splanchnic nerve laterally, and the prostate or posterior vaginal wall anteriorly. Selecting the appropriate dissection layer based on tumor depth and ensuring precise incision of the tendinous arch of the pelvic fascia contributes to successful TaTME outcomes. TaTME represents a significant advancement in rectal cancer surgery, offering improved outcomes through meticulous attention to anatomical detail and precise dissection techniques. Understanding the historical context of rectal cancer surgery alongside recent evidence on TaTME is essential for optimizing patient outcomes and expanding the safe implementation of this innovative approach.

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) in minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted, searching PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized-controlled trials assessing outcomes of LPP vs standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (SPP) in colorectal surgery. Efficacy outcomes [pain score in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), pain score postoperative day 1 (POD1), operative time, and hospital stay] and safety outcomes (blood loss and postoperative complications) were analyzed. Risk of bias2 tool assessed bias risk. The certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE.

Four studies included 537 patients (male 59.8%). LPP was undertaken in 280 (52.1%) patients and associated with lower pain scores in PACU [weighted mean difference: -1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.65 to -0.47, P = 0.004, I 2  = 0%] and POD1 (weighted mean difference: -0.49, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.07, P = 0.024, I 2  = 0%). Meta-regression showed that age [standard error (SE): 0.036, P < 0.001], male sex (SE: 0.006, P < 0.001), and operative time (SE: 0.002, P = 0.027) were significantly associated with increased complications with LPP. In addition, 5.9%-14.5% of surgeons using LLP requested pressure increases to equal the SPP group. The grade of evidence was high for pain score in PACU and on POD1 postoperative complications and major complications, and blood loss, moderate for operative time, low for intraoperative complications, and very low for length of stay.

LPP was associated with lower pain scores in PACU and on POD1 with similar operative times, length of stay, and safety profile compared with SPP in colorectal surgery. Although LPP was not associated with increased complications, older patients, males, patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, and those with longer operative times may be at risk of increased complications.

Minimally invasive surgery can involve the use of robotics to improve patient outcomes. Some robotic systems require special instruments with a designated number of uses. In China, during the reprocessing of the robotic instruments, health care personnel determined that the existing tracking processes were inadequate. They conducted a quality improvement project with the goal of establishing a barcode-based standardized process for tracking robotic instruments. They implemented technology that generated a unique identifier each time a robotic instrument was reprocessed after use. Nurses scanned the identifier when surgeons used the instrument. The findings included the increased accuracy of use documentation and decreases in untraceable sterilization and use records, charging concerns, and average daily and monthly inventory times. An increase in adverse event reports associated with robotic instruments also was noted. The use of barcode technology for robotic instrument tracking continues at the facility and may be expanded for additional specialty instruments.

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce.

To compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC.

We retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery.

Of 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in operative time (P = 0.564), intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.314), reoperation rate (P = 0.314), lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.309), or circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate (P = 0.314) between the two groups. The meta-analysis showed patients in the RS group had fewer positive CRMs (P = 0.04), lesser estimated blood loss (P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.02), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) than patients in the LS group.

Our study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS.

Da Vinci Robotics-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer is becoming more widely used. There is no strong evidence that robotic-assisted surgery and laparoscopic surgery have similar outcomes in elderly patients with TME for rectal cancer.

To determine the improved oncological outcomes and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients undergoing TME surgery.

A retrospective study of the clinical pathology and follow-up of elderly patients who underwent TME surgery at the Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine was conducted from March 2020 through September 2023. The patients were divided into a robot-assisted group (the R-TME group) and a laparoscopic group (the L-TME group), and the short-term efficacy of the two groups was compared.

There were 45 elderly patients (≥ 60 years) in the R-TME group and 50 elderly patients (≥ 60 years) in the L-TME group. There were no differences in demographics, conversion rates, or postoperative complication rates. The L-TME group had a longer surgical time than the R-TME group [145 (125, 187.5) vs 180 (148.75, 206.25) min, P = 0.005), and the first postoperative meal time in the L-TME group was longer than that in the R-TME (4 vs 3 d, P = 0.048). Among the sex and body mass index (BMI) subgroups, the R-TME group had better outcomes than did the L-TME group in terms of operation time (P = 0.042) and intraoperative assessment of bleeding (P = 0.042). In the high BMI group, catheter removal occurred earlier in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (3 vs 4 d, P = 0.001), and autonomous voiding function was restored.

The curative effect and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted TME surgery for elderly patients with rectal cancer are similar to those of laparoscopic TME surgery; however, robotic-assisted surgery has better short-term outcomes for individuals with risk factors such as obesity and pelvic stenosis. Optimizing the learning curve can shorten the operation time, reduce the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, and improve the prognosis.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection is a novel technique. However, evidence in the literature regarding the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) is insufficient. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLS versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of sigmoid colon cancer. We performed a retrospective study at the Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital. Patients diagnosed with sigmoid colon cancer and underwent anterior resection between January 2019 to September 2023 were included in the study. We compared the basic characteristics of the patients and the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients in the two groups. A total of 452 patients were included. Based on propensity score matching, 212 patients (RLS, n = 106; CLS, n = 106) were included. The baseline data in RLS group was comparable to that in CLS group. Compared with CLS group, RLS group exhibited less estimated blood loss (P = 0.015), more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.005), longer operation time (P < 0.001) and higher total hospitalization costs (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in other perioperative or pathologic outcomes between the two groups. For 3-year prognosis, overall survival rates were 92.5% in the RLS group and 90.6% in the CLS group (HR 0.700, 95% CI 0.276-1.774, P = 0.452); disease-free survival rates were 91.5% in the RLS group and 87.7% in the CLS group (HR 0.613, 95% CI 0.262-1.435, P = 0.259). Compared with CLS, RLS for sigmoid colon cancer was found to be associated with a higher number of lymph nodes harvested, similar perioperative outcomes and long-term survival outcomes. High total hospitalization costs of RLS did not translate into better long-term oncology outcomes.

The potential benefits of robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced cancer have not been sufficiently proven by prospective studies. One factor is speculated to be the lack of strict surgeon criteria. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes for robotic surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with strict surgeon experience criteria.

A criterion was set requiring surgeons to have performed more than 40 robotically assisted operations for rectal cancer. Between March 2020 and May 2022, patients with rectal cancer (distance from the anal verge of 12 cm or less, cT2-T4a, cN0-N3, cM0, or cT1-T4a, cN1-N3, cM0) were registered. The primary endpoint was the rate positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) from the pathological specimen. Secondary endpoints were surgical outcomes, pathological results, postoperative complications, and longterm outcomes.

Of the 321 registered patients, 303 were analysed, excluding 18 that were ineligible. At diagnosis: stage I (n = 68), stage II (n = 84) and stage III (n = 151). Neoadjuvant therapy was used in 56 patients. There were no conversions to open surgery. The median console time to rectal resection was 170 min, and the median blood loss was 5 ml. Fourteen patients had a positive CRM (4.6%). Grade III-IV postoperative complications were observed in 13 patients (4.3%).

Robotic-assisted surgery is feasible for locally advanced rectal cancer when strict surgeon criteria are used.

Robot-assisted surgery has a multi-joint function, which improves manipulation of the deep pelvic region and contributes significantly to perioperative safety. However, the superiority of robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopic surgery remains controversial. This study compared the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors.

This single-center, retrospective study included 273 patients with rectal tumors who underwent surgery with anastomosis between 2017 and 2021. In total, 169 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (Lap group), and 104 underwent robot-assisted surgery (Robot group). Postoperative complications were compared via propensity score matching based on inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

The postoperative complication rates based on the Clavien-Dindo classification (Lap vs. Robot group) were as follows: grade ≥ II, 29.0% vs. 19.2%; grade ≥ III, 10.7% vs. 5.8%; anastomotic leakage (AL), 6.5% vs. 4.8%; and urinary dysfunction (UD), 12.1% vs. 3.8%. After adjusting for the IPTW method, although AL rates did not differ significantly between groups, postoperative complications of both grade ≥ II (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.87, p < 0.01) and grade ≥ III (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.53, p < 0.01) were significantly less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group. Furthermore, urinary dysfunction also tended to be less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.00; p = 0.05).

Robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors provides better short-term outcomes than laparoscopic surgery, supporting its use as a safer approach.

There is growing evidence that the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in colorectal cancer resections is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS), possibly through a reduced systemic inflammatory response (SIR). Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is a sensitive SIR biomarker and its utility in the early identification of post-operative complications has been validated in a variety of surgical procedures. There remains a paucity of studies characterising post-operative SIR in RAS.

Retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients undergoing OS, LS and RAS for left-sided and rectal cancer in a single high-volume unit. Patient and disease characteristics, post-operative CRP levels, and clinical outcomes were reviewed, and their relationships explored within binary logistic regression and propensity scores matched models.

A total of 1031 patients were included (483 OS, 376 LS, and 172 RAS). RAS and LS were associated with lower CRP levels across the first 4 post-operative days (p < 0.001) as well as reduced complications and length of stay compared to OS in unadjusted analyses. In binary logistic regression models, RAS was independently associated with lower CRP levels at Day 3 post-operatively (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59, p < 0.001) and a reduction in the rate of all complications (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, p < 0.001) and major complications (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p = 0.036). Within a propensity scores matched model comparing LS versus RAS specifically, RAS was associated with lower post-operative CRP levels in the first two post-operative days, a lower proportion of patients with a CRP ≥ 150 mg/L at Day 3 (20.9% versus 30.5%, p = 0.036) and a lower rate of all complications (34.7% versus 46.7%, p = 0.033).

The present observational study shows that an RAS approach was associated with lower postoperative SIR, and a better postoperative complications profile.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. About 5%-10% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) on presentation. For LARC invading into other structures (i.e. T4b), multivisceral resection (MVR) and/or pelvic exenteration (PE) remains the only potential curative surgical treatment. MVR and/or PE is a major and complex surgery with high post-operative morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been shown to improve short-term post-operative outcomes in other gastrointestinal malignancies, but there is little evidence on its use in MVR, especially so for robotic MVR.

To assess the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive MVR (miMVR), and compare post-operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic MVR.

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1st January 2015 to 31st March 2023. Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with cT4b rectal cancer and underwent MVR, or stage 4 disease with resectable systemic metastases. Patients who underwent curative MVR for locally recurrent rectal cancer, or metachronous rectal cancer were also included. Exclusion criteria were patients with systemic metastases with non-resectable disease. All patients planned for elective surgery were enrolled into the standard enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with standard peri-operative management for colorectal surgery. Complex surgery was defined based on technical difficulty of surgery (i.e. total PE, bladder-sparing prostatectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection or need for flap creation). Our primary outcomes were the margin status, and complication rates. Categorical values were described as percentages and analysed by the chi-square test. Continuous variables were expressed as median (range) and analysed by Mann-Whitney U test. Cumulative overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates with life table analysis. Log-rank test was performed to determine statistical significance between cumulative estimates. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.

A total of 46 patients were included in this study [open MVR (oMVR): 12 (26.1%), miMVR: 36 (73.9%)]. Patients' American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index and co-morbidities were comparable between oMVR and miMVR. There is an increasing trend towards robotic MVR from 2015 to 2023. MiMVR was associated with lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (median 450 vs 1200 mL, P = 0.008), major morbidity (14.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.014), post-operative intra-abdominal collections (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006), post-operative ileus (32.4% vs 66.7%, P = 0.04) and surgical site infection (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006) compared with oMVR. Length of stay was also shorter for miMVR compared with oMVR (median 10 vs 30 d, P = 0.001). Oncological outcomes-R0 resection, recurrence, OS and RFS were comparable between miMVR and oMVR. There was no 30-d mortality. More patients underwent robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR for complex cases (robotic 57.1% vs laparoscopic 7.7%, P = 0.004). The operating time was longer for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR [robotic: 602 (400-900) min, laparoscopic: Median 455 (275-675) min, P < 0.001]. Incidence of R0 resection was similar (laparoscopic: 84.6% vs robotic: 76.2%, P = 0.555). Overall complication rates, major morbidity rates and 30-d readmission rates were similar between laparoscopic and robotic MVR. Interestingly, 3-year OS (robotic 83.1% vs 58.6%, P = 0.008) and RFS (robotic 72.9% vs 34.3%, P = 0.002) was superior for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR.

MiMVR had lower post-operative complications compared to oMVR. Robotic MVR was also safe, with acceptable post-operative complication rates. Prospective studies should be conducted to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic vs laparoscopic MVR.

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumours worldwide, and it is also one of the major diseases that seriously threatens human life and health. At present, the main treatment for rectal cancer is still surgical treatment. The surgical methods have been rapidly developed from the previous open surgery to the current minimally invasive surgery. At present, there are two main minimally invasive surgeries: robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. Due to the particularity of rectal cancer surgery, more and more studies have shown that robotic rectal cancer surgery has more advantages than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether the incidence of postoperative complications after robotic rectal cancer surgery is lower than that after laparoscopy is not uniformly conclusive in the current study. Therefore, in this paper, we searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase and other databases, collected the latest published meta-analysis on postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer, and assessed the quality of the included meta-analysis by AMSTAR-2 evaluation tool, so as to explore the current research status and research quality of postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer. The results showed that compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic rectal cancer surgery could improve the postoperative urinary and reproductive function of male patients, but it could not be proved that robotic rectal cancer surgery could reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, urinary retention, intestinal obstruction, anastomotic bleeding, incision infection, pulmonary infection, venous thrombosis and abdominal abscess; however, the overall quality of meta-analysis of the results of each complication was low or very low. Therefore, multicenter, large-sample, high-quality prospective randomised controlled studies and high-quality meta-analysis are still needed to prove the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery in postoperative complications in the future.

The pathways like Wingless-related integration (Wnt/β-catenin) and PI3K play an important role in colorectal cancer (CRC) development; however, their roles are distinct in the process of oncogenesis. Despite their differences, these pathways interact through feedback mechanisms and regulate the common effectors both in the upstream and the downstream processes in normal and pathological conditions. Their ability to reciprocally control each other is a primary resistance mechanism for the selective inhibitors in CRC.

This review highlights the Wnt/β-catenin and PI3K pathways that are interrelated in CRC, recent advances and some key perspectives in developing inhibitors that could target the tankyrase enzyme and PI3K, apart from a brief description of the potential of dual inhibitors of PI3K and Tankyrases (TNKS).

Recent research has focused on overcoming the challenges particularly relating to the resistance and efficacy of dual inhibitors targeting PI3K and tankyrase proteins. Despite these challenges, PI3K as well as tankyrases remain promising therapeutic targets for the treatment of solid tumors. The design of potent inhibitors is crucial to effectively block these protein signaling pathways. Moreover, it is essential to explore the potential of dual-target inhibition of other signaling pathways in conjunction with PI3K and tankyrase.

The main aim of this study was to evaluate and contrast the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures in the treatment of low and mid rectal cancer in different BMI (body mass index) groups. The clinical records of patients who had laparoscopic or robotic proctectomy at a single center between December 2019 and August 2023 were analyzed. Then we utilized a classification framework to categorize individuals based on their BMI into three unique groups: non-obese, overweight, and obese. The short-term efficacy was evaluated. A consecutive sample of 1413 patients was included in this retrospective investigation. 1158 people out of the total sample chose laparoscopic surgery, whereas 255 people chose robotic surgery. In the group of obese people, robotic surgery showed a statistically significant decrease in blood loss compared to laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.026). People who were overweight or obese were in the hospital for a shorter amount of time after robotic surgery than after laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.033 and P = 0.031, respectively). People with different BMIs in the robotic surgery group took less time to have a flatus passage and oral intake those in the laparoscopic surgery group. Oncological outcomes and the frequency of complications were comparable between the two treatments with different BMIs. Surgical resection of patients undergoing low-anterior surgery may benefit from a robotic approach, particularly in overweight and obese patients.

The effect of robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy is still controversial, and a comprehensive search and analysis of the current relevant evidence is necessary. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS).

Up to August 23, 2023, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) was used to calculate the effect sizes using RevMan 5.3.

A total of 12 studies reporting on 11,686 participants were included. Compared with LS, RS increased the operative time (MD 35.16 min; 95% CI: 16.24, 54.07), but it did significantly reduce the risk of the conversion to open surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40, 0.53) and improved the TME incomplete rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93). Moreover, there were no difference in total postoperative complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84, 1.52), circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63, 1.27), distal margin positive (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29, 1.22), blood loss (MD -11.57 ml; 95% CI: -39.09, 15.94), length of hospital stay (MD -0.08 days; 95% CI: -1.26, 1.10), mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.21), lymph node harvested (MD 0.69.; 95% CI: -0.43, 1.82), and the time of first flatus (MD -0.47 days; 95% CI: -1.19, 0.25) between the two groups.

RS was associated with superiority over LS in reducing the risk of the conversion to open surgery and improving TME incomplete rate, which suggested that RS could be an effective method for treating rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=460084, PROSPERO (CRD42023460084).

This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant literature from PubMed, NCBI, Medline, and Springer databases, spanning the database inception until August 2023. The focus of this systematic review was on controlled studies that compared the treatment outcomes of robot-assisted (Rob) and conventional laparoscopy (Lap) in the context of mid and low rectal cancer. Data extraction and literature review were meticulously conducted by two independent researchers (HMW and RKG). The synthesized data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, adhering to established methodological standards in systematic reviews. The primary outcomes encompass perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes include long-term outcomes.

A total of 11 studies involving 2239 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were included (3 RCTs and 8 NRCTs); the Rob group consisted of 1111 cases, while the Lap group included 1128 cases. The Rob group exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (MD =  -40.01, 95% CI: -57.61 to -22.42, P < 0.00001), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.82, P = 0.02), a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.18, P = 0.001), and a lower CRM positive rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95, P = 0.04). Additionally, the Rob group had lower postoperative morbidity rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) and a lower occurrence rate of complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.90, P = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis revealed a lower anastomotic leakage rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the analysis of operation time (P = 0.42), occurrence rates of protective stoma (P = 0.81), PRM (P = 0.92), and DRM (P = 0.23), time to flatus (P = 0.18), time to liquid diet (P = 0.65), total hospital stay (P = 0.35), 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.67), and 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.42).

Robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment for mid and low rectal cancer yields favorable outcomes, demonstrating both efficacy and safety. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, patients experience reduced intraoperative bleeding and a lower incidence of complications. Notably, the method achieves comparable short-term and long-term treatment results to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery, thus justifying its consideration for widespread clinical application.

The surgical management of rectal cancer is shifting toward more widespread use of robotics across a spectrum of medical centers. There is evidence that the oncologic outcomes are equivalent to laparoscopic resections, and the post-operative outcomes may be improved. This study aims to evaluate the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer resections at a community-based teaching institution and evaluate clinical and oncologic outcomes. A retrospective review of consecutive robotic rectal cancer resections by a single surgeon was performed for a five-year period. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) for total operative time was calculated and plotted to establish a learning curve. The oncologic and post-operative outcomes for each phase were analyzed and compared. The CUSUM learning curve yielded two phases, the learning phase (cases 1-79) and the proficiency phase (cases 80-130). The median operative time was significantly lower in the proficiency phase. The type of neoadjuvant therapy used between the two groups was statistically different, with chemoradiation being the primary regimen in the learning phase and total neoadjuvant therapy being more common in the proficiency phase. Otherwise, oncologic and overall post-operative outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. Robotic rectal resections can be done in a community-based hospital system by trained surgeons with outcomes that are favorable and similar to larger institutions.

The global low survival rate among ovarian cancer patients has resulted in significant social and economic burdens. Nevertheless, previous studies have produced mixed results when exploring the link between anesthetic techniques and the prognosis of ovarian cancer. The study aims to compare the effect of epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia on survival time after cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian cancer.

The PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Cochrane library, Web of science, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Internet), Wanfang Med Online (China database), were systematically searched from inception to May, 2023, using the Medical Subject Headings [MeSH] of "Ovarian Neoplasm" and "Anesthesia, Epidural" and free words to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The research methodology involved analyzing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as prospective or retrospective cohort studies, which compared the long-term prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer under general anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia (GEA) versus general anesthesia alone (GA). The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess methodological quality and bias. Data extraction and assessment of study quality were conducted by two independent reviewers. A meta-analysis was then performed to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall survival (OS) was defined as the primary outcome, time to tumor recurrence (TTR) was the secondary outcome. Epidural anesthesia could be used intraoperatively and immediately postoperatively (EIP), or postoperatively only (EP). GEA includes EIP and EP.

In total, 8 retrospective cohort studies with 2036 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results demonstrated that GEA could extend OS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.84, I2 = 0%, P < 0.05, fixed-effect model) when compared with GA in ovarian cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery, but not TTR (sensitivity analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity among the included studies). The result of analyzing a total of 1490 patients in 4 studies was that EIP had a better prognosis on OS than GA (HR 0.68, 95%CI 0.55-0.85, I2 = 61%, P < 0.05, random-effect model). However, EP had no advantage in TTR (sensitivity analysis revealed it was unstable outcome). Ovarian cancer FIGO(International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage III, stage IV compared to stage I on OS was statistically significant, HRs respectively are 3.67 (95%CI 2.25-5.98), I2 = 0%, fixed-effect model, P < 0.05, and 7.43 (95%CI 3.67-15.03), I2 = 31%, fixed-effect model, P < 0.05, but there was no statistically significant difference between stage II and stage I, HR 2.00, 95%CI0.98-4.09, I2 = 0%, fixed-effect model, P > 0.05. 1-10 mm tumor residuals shorten TTR compared with 0 residuals, HR 1.75, 95% CI1.50-2.04, I2 = 0%, fixed-effect model, P < 0.05.

It is hard to conclude that postoperative epidural analgesia offers greater benefits than GA. However, general anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia (EIP) can improve overall survival in ovarian cancer patients, allowing the anesthesiologist to use anesthesia techniques to provide a favorable prognosis for the ovarian cancer patient. Tumor staging and the extent of cell reduction are also critical factors that significantly influence the long-prognosis of ovarian cancer patients.

Robot assisted surgery (RAS) provides medical practitioners with valuable tools, decreasing strain during surgery and leading to better patient outcomes. While the loss of haptic sensation is a commonly cited disadvantage of RAS, new systems aim to address this problem by providing artificial haptic feedback. N = 56 papers that compared robotic surgery systems with and without haptic feedback were analyzed to quantify the performance benefits of restoring the haptic modality. Additionally, this study identifies factors moderating the effect of restoring haptic sensation. Overall results showed haptic feedback was effective in reducing average forces (Hedges' g = 0.83) and peak forces (Hedges' g = 0.69) applied during surgery, as well as reducing the completion time (Hedges' g = 0.83). Haptic feedback has also been found to lead to higher accuracy (Hedges' g = 1.50) and success rates (Hedges' g = 0.80) during surgical tasks. Effect sizes on several measures varied between tasks, the type of provided feedback, and the subjects' levels of surgical expertise, with higher levels of expertise generally associated with smaller effect sizes. No significant differences were found between virtual fixtures and rendering contact forces. Implications for future research are discussed.

Scarce research has reported the comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in mid-low rectal cancer. Therefore, this meta-analysis is aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two surgical approaches.

A comprehensive search of the databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was performed for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The outcomes of interest acquired from eight articles included three aspects: intraoperative conditions, postoperative status of patients, and complications. All data (robotic = 1350 patients, laparoscopic = 1330 patients) enrolled were analyzed using Rev Man 5.4.

Compared to the laparoscopic group, the robotic group indicated a noticeable superiority in estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), number of lymph nodes dissected (P = 0.004), time to first flatus (P = 0.001), time to first fluid diet (P = 0.001), hospital stay (P < 0.0001), conversion (P = 0.009), and urinary retention (P = 0.0006), but devoted much more operation time (P = 0.0004).

Robotic surgery was associated with superiority over laparoscopic surgery in increasing surgical safety, accelerating postoperative recovery, and reducing complications, which suggested that robotic surgery could be a safe and effective method for treating mid-low rectal cancer.

Robotics has been used safely and successfully in a variety of adult surgeries and is gradually gaining ground in pediatrics. While the benefits of robotic-assisted surgery in disease treatment are well recognized, its high cost has led to questions. To investigate whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) is cost-effective compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) in pediatric surgery, we attempted to construct a model to perform an analysis of these two surgical approaches using Python statistical analysis software.

We selected four common complex pediatric surgical conditions (choledochal cyst, Hirschsprung's disease, vesicoureteral reflux, and congenital hydronephrosis) from three systems (pediatric hepatobiliary, gastroenterology, and urology). Models were constructed using Python statistical software to compare hospital costs and surgical outcomes for RALS and LS. In addition, we performed a preferred strategy analysis for both surgical modalities while assessing model uncertainty using one-way sensitivity analysis.

For the four diseases, the operative time decreased sequentially. The total inpatient costs of RALS were 10,816.72, 9145.44, 8414.29, 7973.58 dollars, respectively, yielding 1.789, 1.712, 1.749, 1.792 quality adjustment life years (QALYs) over two years post-operatively. The incremental cost of RALS relative to LS for each disease was 3523.44, 3200.20, 3049.79, 3043.66 dollars, respectively, with an incremental utility of 0.060, 0.054, 0.051, 0.050 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for RALS for each of the four diseases were 58,724.01, 59,262.95, 59,799.79, 60,873.20 dollars/QALY, all less than 100,000 dollars/QALY. The cost of robot consumables was the main incremental cost of RALS and had the most significant impact on the model.

For the four pediatric surgical conditions described above, RALS has higher inpatient costs than LS, but it has better postoperative outcomes, and all four RALS treatments are cost-effective. Children with complex diseases and long operative times appear to benefit more from RALS.

The use of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but its short-term results remain unclear. We compared the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a nationwide inpatient database.

We analyzed patients registered in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database who underwent robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer from April 2018 to March 2020. Postoperative complication rates, anesthesia time, length of hospital stay, and cost were compared using propensity score matching for low anterior resection (LAR), high anterior resection (HAR), and abdominoperineal resection (APR).

Among 38 090 rectal cancer cases, 1992 LAR, 357 HAR, and 310 APR pairs were generated by propensity score matching and analyzed. Anesthesia time was longer for robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery (LAR: 388.6 vs. 452.8 min, p < 0.001; HAR: 300.9 vs. 393.5 min, p < 0.001; APR: 4478.5 vs. 533.5 min, p < 0.001). Robot-assisted surgery was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay for LAR (22.3 vs. 20.0 days, p < 0.001) and APR (29.2 vs. 25.9 days, p = 0.029). Total costs for LAR were significantly lower for robot-assisted surgery (2031511.6 vs. 1955216.6 JPY, p < 0.001). The complication rates for robot-assisted surgery tended to be fewer than laparoscopic surgery for all procedures, but the differences were not significant.

Although the anesthesia time was longer for robot-assisted surgery, the procedure resulted in shorter hospital stay for LAR and APR, and lower costs for LAR compared with laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted surgery can thus help to reduce costs and can be performed safely.