Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Sphincter-Saving Surgery: Results of a Single-Center Series of 400 Consecutive Patients and Perspectives
The aim of this study is to compare robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) with laparoscopic TME (L-TME) in a series of consecutive rectal cancer patients.
R-TME and L-TME have drawn contradictory reports. A recent phase III trial (ROLARR) concluded that R-TME performed by surgeons with varying experience did not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection.
Patients and Methods
In this retrospective single-center cohort study (8/2008 to 4/2015), data were prospectively registered. A total of 200 L-TME and 200 R-TME were operated consecutively without selection. The primary outcome was the conversion rate to open laparotomy or transanal TME. The secondary endpoints were type of anastomosis, operative time, postoperative morbidity, circumferential radial (CRM) and distal margins, quality of life, bladder and sexual dysfunction, and oncological outcomes.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Type of anastomosis [colo-anal anastomosis (CAA) 40% vs 49%; p < 0.001], transanal TME (5% vs 13%; p = 0.005), and conversion rate (2% vs 9.5%; odd ratio (OR): 0.19 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05–0.60]) were significantly different. Intersphincteric resection (39% vs 47%), diverting stoma (66.5% vs 68%), CRM involvement, median operative time (243 vs 232 min), and R0 resection rate were similar. Conversion risk was lower for R-TME in male patients and those with small tumors (< 5 cm). The 3-year overall survival rate was 84.1% [77.3–88.9%] and 88.4% [82.9–92.2%] in the R-TME and L-TME group. No significant differences were reported in quality of life, and urinary or sexual function.
R-TME is less likely to be converted to open surgery than L-TME; operative time and curative pathologic criteria are equivalent. Future prospective trial should compare standardized procedures performed by experienced surgeons for subgroups of high-risk patients.
The authors thank Drs. Mathias Alline, Julien Coget, and Fabien Wilk for participating in the study and surgical assistance. The authors also thank Nabila Bouazza for valuable help regarding data collection and management of the database and the project, and Sylvain Boudon for data management.
PR is proctor for Intuitive Surgical Inc. All other authors have nothing to disclose regarding the present study.
- 6.Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:1569–1580.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.Colombo P-E, Bertrand MM, Alline M, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for sphincter-saving surgery: Is there any difference in the transanal TME rectal approach? A single-center series of 120 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:1594–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al. Microsoft Word—SCmanual.doc—SCManualQLQ-C30.pdf. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. http://www.eortc.be/qol/files/SCManualQLQ-C30.pdf.2001. Accessed 8 Mar 2018.
- 34.Rouanet P, Gourgou S, Gogenur I, et al. Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial (RESET): protocol for a parallel cohort trial of outcomes using surgical techniques for total mesorectal excision with low anterior resection in high-risk rectal cancer patients. Colorectal Dis. (submitted).Google Scholar