Robotic approach to colonic resection: For some or for all patients?

The robotic approach is rapidly gaining momentum in colorectal surgery. Its benefits in pelvic surgery have been extensively discussed and are well established amongst those who perform minimally invasive surgery. However, the same cannot be said for the robotic approach for colonic resection, where its role is still debated. Here we aim to provide an extensive debate between selective and absolute use of the robotic approach for colonic resection by combining the thoughts of experts in the field of robotic and minimally invasive colorectal surgery, dissecting all key aspects for a critical view on this exciting new paradigm in colorectal surgery.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancers: The COLRAR Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether robotic for middle or low rectal cancer produces an improvement in surgical outcomes compared with laparoscopic surgery in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). BACKGROUND: There is a lack of proven clinical benefit of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with a laparoscopic approach in the setting of multicenter RCTs. METHODS: Between July 2011 and February 2016, patients diagnosed with an adenocarcinoma located <10 cm from the anal verge and clinically rated T1-4aNxM0 were enrolled. The primary outcome was the completeness of TME assessed by a surgeon and a pathologist. RESULTS: The RCT was terminated prematurely because of poor accrual of data. In all, 295 patients were assigned randomly to a robot-assisted TME group (151 in R-TME) or a laparoscopy-assisted TME group (144 in L-TME). The rates of complete TME were not different between groups (80.7% in R-TME, 77.1% in L-TME). Pathologic outcomes including the circumferential resection margin and the numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were not different between groups. In a subanalysis, the positive circumferential resection margin rate was lower in the R-TME group (0% vs 6.1% for L-TME; P =0.031). Among the recovery parameters, the length of opioid use was shorter in the R-TME group ( P =0.028). There was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups (12.0% for R-TME vs 8.3% for L-TME). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with middle or low rectal cancer, robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly improve the TME quality compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT01042743).

Standardization of the Definition and Surgical Management of Splenic Flexure Carcinoma by an International Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Technique: Room for Improvement?

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of splenic flexure carcinoma remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish an expert international consensus on splenic flexure carcinoma management. DESIGN: A 3-round online-based Delphi study was conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: The first round included 18 experts from 12 different countries. For the second and third rounds, each expert in the first round was asked to invite 2 more colorectal surgeons (n = 47). Out of 47 invited experts, 89% (n = 42) participated in the second and third rounds of the consensus. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 35 questions were created and sent via the online questionnaire tool. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of recommendation based on voting concordance were graded as follows: more than 75% agreement was defined as strong, between 50% and 75% as moderate, and below 50% as weak. RESULTS: There was moderate consensus on the definition of splenic flexure (55%) as 10 cm from either side where the distal transverse colon turns into the proximal descending colon. Also, experts recommended an abdominopelvic CT scan plus intraoperative exploration (moderate consensus, 72%) for tumor localization and cancer registry. Segmental colectomy was the preferred technique for the management of splenic flexure carcinoma in the elective setting (72%). Moderate consensus was achieved on the technique of complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation principles for splenic flexure carcinoma (74%). Only strong consensus was achieved on the surgical approach for minimally invasive surgery (88%). LIMITATIONS: Subjective decisions are based on individual expert clinical experience and not evidence based. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first internationally conducted Delphi consensus study regarding splenic flexure carcinoma. The definition of splenic flexure remains ambiguous. To more effectively compare oncologic outcomes among different cancer registries, guidelines need to be developed to standardize each domain and avoid arbitrary definitions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C143 . ESTANDARIZACIN DE LA DEFINICIN Y MANEJO QUIRRGICO DEL CARCINOMA DE NGULO ESPLNICO ESTABLECIDO POR UN CONSENSO INTERNACIONAL DE EXPERTOS UTILIZANDO LA TCNICA DELPHI ESPACIO PARA MEJORAR: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer de ángulo esplénico sigue siendo controvertido.OBJETIVO:Establecer un consenso internacional de expertos sobre el manejo del cáncer del ángulo esplénico.DISEÑO:Se condujo un estudio Delphi en línea de 3 rondas entre septiembre de 2020 y febrero de 2021.ESCENARIO:La primera ronda incluyó a 18 expertos de 12 países distintos. Para la segunda y tercera rondas, a cada experto de la primera ronda se le pidió que invitara a 2 cirujanos colorrectales más de su región (n = 47). De los 47 expertos invitados, el 89% (n = 42) participó en la segunda y tercera ronda del consenso.INTERVENCIONES:Se crearon y enviaron un total de 35 preguntas a través de la herramienta de cuestionario en línea.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los niveles de recomendación basados en la concordancia de votos fueron jerarquizados de la siguiente manera: más del 75% de acuerdo se definió como fuerte, entre 50 y 75% como moderado y por debajo del 50% como débil.RESULTADOS:Hubo un consenso moderado sobre la definición de ángulo esplénico (55%) como 10 cm desde cualquier lado donde el colon transverso distal se convierte en el colon descendente proximal. Así también, los expertos recomendaron la tomografía computarizada abdominopélvica más la exploración intraoperatoria (consenso moderado, 72%) para la localización del tumor y el registro del ángulo esplénico. La colectomía segmentaria fue la técnica preferida para el tratamiento del cáncer de ángulo esplénico en el caso de ser electivo (72%). Se logró un consenso moderado sobre la técnica de escisión completa del mesocolon y los principios de ligadura vascular a nivel central para el cáncer de ángulo esplénico (74%). Solo se logró un fuerte consenso sobre el abordaje quirúrgico para la cirugía mínimamente invasiva (88%).LIMITACIONES:Decisiones subjetivas basadas en la experiencia clínica de expertos individuales y no basadas en evidencia.CONCLUSIONES:Este es el primer estudio internacional de consenso Delphi realizado sobre el cáncer de ángulo esplénico. Si bien encontramos un consenso moderado sobre las modalidades de diagnóstico preoperatorio y el manejo quirúrgico, la definición de ángulo esplénico sigue siendo ambigua. Para comparar de manera más efectiva los resultados oncológicos entre diferentes registros de cáncer, se deben desarrollar pautas para estandarizar cada dominio y evitar definiciones arbitrarias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C143 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Laparoscopic D3 oncological resection in splenic flexure cancer: Technical details and its impact on long-term survival.

AIM: The applicability of laparoscopic D3 oncological resection for splenic flexure cancer (SFC) surgery has not been fully explored due to technical difficulties and variations in surgical procedure. The aim of this work is to describe the feasibility of performing laparoscopic D3 resection in SFC and its impact on long-term survival. METHOD: A retrospective study on 47 out of 52 consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy for SFC from December 2006 until December 2019 at Korea University Anam Hospital was performed. Data on patients' demographic and clinical features, surgical procedures, intraoperative and postoperative complications, pathological features and follow-up were collected. Categorical data are expressed as frequencies (n) and percentages (%). Continuous data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and median (range). The Kaplan-Meier test was used to determine the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The median age of patients was 67.0 years (range 27-87 years) and 72.3% were men. Ten (21.3%) patients presented with an obstructing tumour and underwent an elective laparoscopic colectomy, while 68.1% of patients presented with Stage II and III disease. The conversion rate was 4.3% and the morbidity rate was 31.9%. There was one postoperative death secondary to splenic infarction and anastomotic leak leading to multi-organ failure. Four deaths occurred due to disease progression during a median follow-up of 63.8 months. The rate of recurrence was 20%, the 5-year OS was 89.6% and the 5-year PFS was 72.9%. After R0 resection, the 5-year OS was 91.5% and the 5-year DFS was 74.5%. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic D3 colectomy for SFC is feasible, with an acceptable morbidity and long-term oncological outcome when performed by highly skilled laparoscopic colorectal surgeons with knowledge of the complex anatomy around the splenic flexure. Further randomized trials should be performed to determine the advantage of laparoscopic D3 colectomy over conventional colectomy for SFC.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome.

AIM: Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future. METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol. RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements. CONCLUSION: This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

Laparoscopic Extraperitoneal Approach for Lateral Pelvic Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer: Techniques and Short-Term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection has been performed selectively in rectal cancer cases; however, it involves highly skilled techniques because of the complex adjacent anatomical structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laparoscopic EP-LPND was performed in Korea University Anam Hospital from June 2018, and short-term surgical outcomes were analyzed from June to December 2018. Among the patients with histologically diagnosed rectal adenocarcinoma, patients who were suspected Lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis at magnetic resonance imaging were selected for this procedure. RESULTS: Seven patients underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal approach for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in the study period. The mean number of retrieved lymph node was 4.57, and metastatic lymph nodes were identified in 3 patients (42.8%). All of the lymph nodes with suspected metastasis preoperatively were removed in postoperative images. There was no immediate postoperative complication beyond the moderate grade associated with lateral pelvic lymph node dissection. The median follow-up was 9 months, and there were no local recurrence nor complications related to sexual and voiding functions. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic extraperitoneal approach might be an efficient way to perform lateral pelvic lymph node dissection using the same principles as the conventional method without violation of the peritoneum.

Robotic approach may be associated with a lower risk of lung metastases compared to laparoscopic approach for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a multivariate analysis on long-term recurrence patterns.

PURPOSE: Describe differences on recurrence patterns of mid-low rectal cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and low anterior resection between laparoscopic and robotic approach. METHODS: Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database between 2006 and 2019. Demographics, clinicopathological features, recurrence, and survival were investigated. Cox regression analysis was performed for risk factor analysis. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients (36 laparoscopic and 124 robotic) were included. Systemic recurrence rate was higher in laparoscopic group (27.8 vs 12.1%, p = 0.023). Liver recurrence was similar (11.1 vs 4.0%). Lung recurrence was higher after laparoscopy (19.4 vs 6.5%, p = 0.019). Time to lung recurrence was shorter after laparoscopy (13.0 months, IQR 4.0-20.0) compared to robotic (23.5 months, IQR 17.0-42.7) with no statistical significance. Time to liver recurrence was similar between laparoscopy (19.5 months, IQR 4.7-37.5) and robotic (19.0 months, IQR 10.5-33.0). Median overall survival after lung recurrence was different (p = 0.021) between laparoscopy (19.0 months, IQR 16.0-67.0) and robotic (74.0 months, IQR 50.2-112.2). OS after liver recurrence was similar between groups. Overall survival and lung disease-free survival were different between the two groups (p = 0.032 and p = 0.020), while liver disease-free survival and local recurrence-free survival were not. Laparoscopy (p = 0.030; HR 3.074, 95% CI: 1.112-8.496) was a risk factor for lung disease-free survival on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Lung recurrences were less frequent and with better overall survival in the robotic group. Liver recurrences were not influenced by choice of approach. Trials are needed to investigate why the robotic approach affects distant metastasis control.

Midline incision vs. transverse incision for specimen extraction is not a significant risk factor for developing incisional hernia after minimally invasive colorectal surgery: multivariable analysis of a large cohort from a single tertiary center in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) is a commonly encountered problem even in the era of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Numerous studies on IH are available in English literature, but there are lack of data from the Eastern part of the world. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors as well as incidence of IH by analyzing a large cohort collected from a single tertiary center in Korea. METHODS: Among a total number of 4276 colorectal cancer patients who underwent a surgical resection from 2006 to 2019 in Korea University Anam Hospital, 2704 patients (2200 laparoscopic and 504 robotic) who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. IH was confirmed by each patient's diagnosis code registered in the hospital databank based on physical examination and/or computed tomography findings. Clinical data including specimen extraction incision (transverse or vertical midline) were compared between IH group and no IH group. Risk factors of developing IH were assessed by utilizing univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: During the median follow-up of 41 months, 73 patients (2.7%) developed IH. Midline incision group (n = 1472) had a higher incidence of IH than that of transverse incision group (n = 1232) (3.5% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.003). The univariable analysis revealed that the risk factors of developing IH were old age, female gender, obesity, co-morbid cardiovascular disease, transverse incision for specimen extraction, and perioperative bleeding requiring transfusion. However, on multivariable analysis, specimen extraction site was not significant in developing IH and transfusion requirement was the strongest risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: IH development after MIS is uncommon in Korean patients. Multivariable analysis suggests that specimen extraction site can be flexibly chosen between midline and transverse incisions, with little concern about risk of developing IH. Careful efforts are required to minimize operative bleeding because blood transfusion is a strong risk factor for developing IH.

Lower Incidence of Postoperative Urinary Retention in Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer Compared with Laparoscopic Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence and clinical significance of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) remain high. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of POUR and related risk factors in patients who underwent total mesorectal excision (TMR) for low rectal cancer. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected colorectal database from a single center. Data from patients who underwent surgery for low rectal cancer between September 2006 and May 2017 were analyzed to assess the risk factors of POUR. POUR was considered inability to void after urinary catheter removal requiring catheter reinsertion and difficulty in bladder emptying requiring intermittent catheterization. RESULTS: Of 555 patients with low rectal cancer, 78 (14.1%) developed POUR. Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, laparoscopic TMR (odds ratio [OR]; 2.114, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.212-3.689, p = 0.008) and postoperative ileus (OR; 2.389, 95% CI; 1.282-4.450, p = 0.006) were independent risk factors of POUR. Male gender, advanced age, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, longer operative time, abdominoperineal resection, and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection were not associated with POUR. Advanced age over 65 years also failed to show statistical significance (OR; 1.604, 95% CI; 0.965-2.668, p = 0.068). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic approach and postoperative ileus are risk factors for POUR after low rectal cancer surgery. We postulate that the benefits of robotic surgical systems compared to a laparoscopic approach may reduce the incidence of POUR.

3D mesenteric angiogram-based assessment of Arc of Riolan crossing the inferior mesenteric vein: important considerations in high ligation during splenic flexure takedown in anterior resection.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have described the finding of the Arc of Riolan (AoR) crossing the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) seen during high ligation of IMV while performing minimally invasive colectomies. However, the AoR usually has a medial course, and this variant AoR anatomic course and the clinical importance of its preservation during splenic flexure takedown in anterior resection remains controversial. METHODS: After institutional approval (QA-5775), radiological identification of and mapping of the vessel horizontally crossing the IMV under the pancreas, when present, was performed at a single institution (Westmead Hospital, New South Wales, Australia). One hundred consecutive computed tomographic (CT) mesenteric angiograms conducted in 2018 were reviewed retrospectively to determine the presence of a vessel horizontally crossing the IMV. 3D reconstructions were used to map out its course to understand its origin and full course. Baseline characteristics, including demographic and comorbidity data, were obtained from the medical record. RESULTS: On 3D mesenteric angiogram reconstructions, a vessel crossing anterior to the IMV was present in 11 of 98 cases (11.2%). Two cases were excluded as the presence of this vessel was indeterminate. Eight of 11 patients (72.7%) were male, and the mean age was 49.3 years (range: 21-80 years). There was no statistically significant difference in age and comorbidities between the groups. Importantly, in all 11 cases, there was an arterial vessel crossing the IMV originating from the SMA and communicating with the IMA or a branch of the IMA, proving definitively that this vessel was by definition the AoR. CONCLUSION: This 3D mesenteric angiogram mapping study has shown definitively that the vessel horizontally crossing anterior to the IMV and inferior to the pancreas is an arterial vessel from the SMA to IMA, and by definition the Arc of Riolan. When present, identification and preservation of this collateral arterial vessel during splenic flexure takedown in anterior resection may be important in reducing the risk of post-operative bowel ischaemia.

A Multicenter Matched Comparison of Transanal and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid and Low-rectal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of surgical resection of transanal total mesorectal excision (TA-TME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME). BACKGROUND: Both TA-TME and R-TME have been advocated to improve the quality of surgery for rectal cancer below 10 cm from the anal verge, but there are little data comparing TA-TME and R-TME. METHODS: Data of patients undergoing TA-TME or R-TME for rectal cancer below 10 cm from the anal verge and a sphincter-saving procedure from 5 high-volume rectal cancer referral centers between 2011 and 2017 were obtained. Coarsened exact matching was used to create balanced cohorts of TA-TME and R-TME. The main outcome was the incidence of poor-quality surgical resection, defined as a composite measure including incomplete quality of TME, or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or distal resection margin (DRM). RESULTS: Out of a total of 730 patients (277 TA-TME, 453 R-TME), matched groups of 226 TA-TME and 370 R-TME patients were created. These groups were well-balanced. The mean tumor height from the anal verge was 5.6 cm (SD 2.5), and 70% received preoperative radiotherapy. The incidence of poor-quality resection was similar in both groups (TA-TME 6.9% vs R-TME 6.8%; P = 0.954). There were no differences in TME specimen quality (complete or near-complete TA-TME 99.1% vs R-TME 99.2%; P = 0.923) and CRM (5.6% vs 6.0%; P = 0.839). DRM involvement may be higher after TA-TME (1.8% vs 0.3%; P = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS: High-quality TME for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma of the mid and low rectum can be equally achieved by transanal or robotic approaches in skilled hands, but attention should be paid to the distal margin.

Meta-Analysis of the Impact of the Learning Curve in Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery on Histopathologic Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Although the process of learning robotic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with a prolonged operating time and higher complication rates, its impact on histopathologic outcomes is unknown. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of the learning curve in robotic surgery for rectal cancer on histopathologic outcomes. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. The inclusion criterion was any clinical study comparing the outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer between different phases of the learning curve (LC) including competence (C). The primary endpoint was the circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement rate defined as CRM ≤1 mm. The Mantel-Haenszel method with odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR (95%CI)) was used for dichotomous variables. RESULTS: Ten studies including a total of 907 patients (521 LC and 386 C) were selected. Nine studies were found to have a low risk of bias, and one had a moderate risk of bias. The CRM involvement rate was 2.9% (13/441) for learning curve vs. 4.6% (13/284) for competence. This difference was not significant (OR (95%CI) = 0.70 (0.30, 1.60); p=0.39; I2=0%). CONCLUSION: A surgeon's learning curve seems to have no impact on CRM involvement rates compared to surgeon competence in robotic surgery for rectal cancer.

Arc of Riolan-Preserving Splenic Flexure Takedown During Anterior Resection: Potentially Critical to Prevent Acute Anastomotic Ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: The Arc of Riolan is a strategic vessel that provides collateral mesenteric circulation in 10% of individuals. The importance of identifying and preserving the arc of Riolan in reducing the risk of ischemia to the proximal anastomotic segment after high ligation anterior resection was evaluated. TECHNIQUE: The arc of Riolan is a vessel that crosses anterior to the inferior mesenteric vein horizontally below the level of the pancreas. A retrospective review of all recorded videos of laparoscopic and robotic low and ultra-low anterior resections was performed in September to December 2012 and prospective evaluation in April to July 2013. The main outcome measures were arc of Riolan identification and preservation, and this was correlated with postoperative transmural colonic ischemia requiring surgical reintervention. From July 2013 onward, we routinely performed arc of Riolan-sparing anterior resections. RESULTS: Arc of Riolan was observed in 17.8% of cases. Between 2006 and 2012, before routinely looking for and preserving the arc of Riolan, our rate of acute colonic transmural ischemia requiring an emergency Hartmann procedure after anterior resection was 0.8% (6/723). Between 2012 and 2016, after we started performing arc of Riolan-sparing splenic flexure takedown, there were no cases of acute colonic transmural ischemia requiring surgical reintervention (0/576) after anterior resection. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing and preserving the arc of Riolan, if visualized, during high inferior mesenteric vein ligation and splenic flexure takedown may be an important step in reducing the risk of acute colonic ischemia postanterior resection. See Video at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A535.

Outcomes according to body mass index following laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Body mass index (BMI) may not be appropriate for different populations. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) suggested 25 kg/m2 as a measure of obesity for Asian populations. The purpose of this report was to compare the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal resection with BMI classified from the WHO Asia-Pacific perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection from September 2006 to March 2015 at a tertiary referral hospital. A total of 2408 patients were included and classified into four groups: underweight (n = 112, BMI <18.5 kg/m2), normal (n = 886, 18.5-22.9 kg/m2), pre-obese (n = 655, 23-24.9 kg/m2) and obese (n = 755, >25 kg/m2). Perioperative parameters and oncologic outcomes were analysed amongst groups. RESULTS: Conversion rate was the highest in the underweight group (2.7%, P < 0.001), whereas the obese group had the fewest harvested lymph nodes (21.7, P < 0.001). Comparing oncologic outcomes except Stage IV, the underweight group was lowest for overall (P = 0.007) and cancer-specific survival (P = 0.002). The underweight group had the lowest proportion of national health insurance but the highest rate of medical care (P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The obese group had the fewest harvested lymph nodes, whereas the underweight group had the highest estimated blood loss, conversion rate to open approaches and the poorest overall and cancer-specific survivals.

Robotic Resection is a Good Prognostic Factor in Rectal Cancer Compared with Laparoscopic Resection: Long-term Survival Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching.

BACKGROUND: Robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has rapidly increased and has shown short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. However, data for long-term oncologic outcomes are limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 732 patients who underwent totally robotic (n = 272) and laparoscopic (n = 460) total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer were included in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared clinicopathologic outcomes of patients. In addition, short- and long-term outcomes and prognostic factors for survival were evaluated in the matched robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision groups (224 matched pairs by propensity score). RESULTS: Before case matching, patients in the robotic group were younger, more likely to have undergone preoperative chemoradiation, and had a lower tumor location than those in the laparoscopic group. After case matching most clinicopathologic outcomes were similar between the groups, but operative time was longer and postoperative ileus was more frequent in the robotic group. In the matched patients excluding stage IV, the overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival were better in the robotic group, but did not reach statistical significance. The 5-year survival rates for robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision were 90.5% and 78.0% for overall survival, 90.5% and 79.5% for cancer-specific survival, and 72.6% and 68.0% for disease-free survival. In multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival and cancer-specific survival (p = 0.0040, HR = 0.333; p = 0.0161, HR = 0.367). LIMITATIONS: This study has the potential for selection bias and limited generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer showed long-term survival comparable to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in this study. Robotic surgery was a good prognostic factor for overall survival and cancer-specific survival, suggesting potential oncologic benefits.

Oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer patients with a ≤1-cm distal resection margin.

PURPOSE: Recently, common application of sphincter-saving resection in rectal cancer has led to acceptance of a 1-cm distal resection margin (DRM). The aim of this study was to evaluate oncologic outcomes of a DRM ≤1 cm in sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer. The outcomes of a DRM ≤0.5 cm was also evaluated. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data from 415 patients who underwent sphincter-saving resection for mid and low rectal cancer between September 2006 and December 2012 at Korea University Anam Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups according to DRM measured in a formalin fixed specimen: ≤1 cm (n = 132) and >1 cm (n = 283). The DRM ≤1 cm group was divided into two subgroups: ≤0.5 cm (n = 45) and >0.5, ≤1 cm (n = 87). RESULTS: Median follow-up periods were 47.2 months. The 5-year local recurrence rate was 8.8% in the DRM ≤1 cm group and 8.5% in the DRM >1 cm group (p = 0.630). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 75.1 and 76.3% (p = 0.895), and the 5-year overall survival rate was 82.6 and 85.9% (p = 0.401), respectively. In subanalysis of the DRM ≤1 cm group, there was also no significant difference in the local recurrence and survival. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in local recurrence and survival based on DRM length. We found that DRM length less than 1 cm was not a prognostic factor for local recurrence or survival.