No significant differences were found in the 5-year overall, disease-free survival and local recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures. We concluded that robotic surgery for rectal cancer failed to offer any oncologic or clinical benefits as compared with laparoscopy despite an increased cost.

Robotic rectal cancer resection can be safely performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with acceptable short-term outcomes comparable to those for laparoscopic resection.

The true benefits of robotic surgery are controversial, and whether robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be justified as a standard treatment for rectal cancer patients needs to be clarified. This case-matched study aimed to compare the postoperative complications and short- and long-term outcomes of R-TME and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) for rectal cancer.Among 1029 patients, we identified 278 rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME. Propensity score matching was used to match this group with 278 patients who underwent L-TME.The mean follow-up period was similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 52.5 ± 17.1 vs 51.0 ± 13.1 months, P = 0.253), as were patient characteristics. The operation time was significantly longer in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (361.6 ± 91.9  vs 272.4 ± 83.8 min; P < 0.001), whereas the conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and recovery of pain and bowel motility were similar between both groups. The rates of circumferential resection margin involvement and early complications were similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 4.7% vs 5.0%, P = 1.000; and 23.7% vs 25.9%, P = 0.624, respectively), as were the 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates (93.1% vs 92.2%, P = 0.422; 79.6% vs 81.8%, P = 0.538; 3.9% vs 5.9%, P = 0.313, respectively).The oncologic quality, short- and long-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity in the R-TME group were comparable with those in the L-TME group.

Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive than laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Considering that robotic surgery can be applied more easily for low-lying cancers, the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal cancer surgery should be assessed based on oncologic outcomes and functional results from future studies.

Robotic surgery is increasingly used in the field of rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection (uLAR) and coloanal anastomosis (CAA). Between January 2007 and December 2010, a retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative uLAR and CAA with or without intersphincteric resection using either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach. The study excluded patients with tumors invading the levator ani or external sphincter, patients with T4 cancers invading the prostate or vagina, and patients for whom an open approach was used. Patients' short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. This study enrolled 84 consecutive patients (47 in the robotic group and 37 in the laparoscopic group). The patient characteristics and operative data did not differ significantly between the groups except for the rate of conversion to open surgery (robot, 2.1 % vs laparoscopy, 16.2 %; p = 0.02). The postoperative outcomes also were similar in the two groups, but the hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (robot, 9 days vs laparoscopy, 11 days; p = 0.011). No postoperative mortality occurred. The median follow-up period was 31.5 months. No difference was shown in local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, or disease-free survival between the two groups. Robotic uLAR and CAA with or without ISR is a safe and feasible surgical approach with a lower conversion rate, a shorter hospital stay, and similar oncologic outcomes compared with a laparoscopic approach. Further prospective and case-control cohort studies with longer follow-up periods are required.

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.

There was no difference between the easy, moderate, and difficult groups in terms of surgical outcomes, such as operation time, for robotic rectal surgery. The robot system can provide more comfort during surgery for the surgeon, and may overcome challenges associated with difficult pelvic anatomy.

The clinical manifestations of and risk factors for AL were different between MIS and OS. AL after MIS may be more influenced by factors related to technical difficulties. Close attention should be given to patients undergoing surgery with risk factors for AL.