Postoperative complications after robotic resection of colorectal cancer:An analysis based on 5-year experience at a large-scale center

BACKGROUND As a common gastrointestinal malignancy,colorectal cancer(CRC)poses a serious health threat globally.Robotic surgery is one of the future trends in surgical treatment of CRC.Robotic surgery has several technical advantages over laparoscopic surgery,including 3D visualization,elimination of the fulcrum effect,and better ergonomic positioning,which together lead to better surgical outcomes and faster recovery.However,analysis of independent factors of postoperative complications after robotic surgery is still insufficient.AIM To analyze the incidence and risk factors for postoperative complications after robotic surgery in patients with CRC.METHODS In total,1040 patients who had undergone robotic surgical resection for CRC between May 2015 and May 2020 were analyzed retrospectively.Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo(C-D)classification,and possible risk factors were evaluated.RESULTS Among 1040 patients who had undergone robotic surgery for CRC,the overall,severe,local,and systemic complication rates were 12.2%,2.4%,8.8%,and 3.5%,respectively.Multivariate analysis revealed that multiple organ resection(P<0.001)and level III American Society of Anesthesiologists(ASA)score(P=0.006)were independent risk factors for overall complications.Multivariate analysis identified multiple organ resection(P<0.001)and comorbidities(P=0.029)as independent risk factors for severe complications(C-D grade III or higher).Regarding local complications,multiple organ resection(P=0.002)and multiple bowel resection(P=0.027)were independent risk factors.Multiple organ resection(P<0.001)and level III ASA score(P=0.007)were independent risk factors for systemic complications.Additionally,sigmoid colectomy had a lower incidence of overall complications(6.4%;P=0.006)and local complications(4.7%;P=0.028)than other types of colorectal surgery.CONCLUSION Multiple organ resection,level III ASA score,comorbidities,and multiple bowel resection were risk factors for postoperative complications,with multiple organ resection being the most likely.

Mini-invasive vs open resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The safety and feasibility of the simultaneous resection of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCRLM) have been demonstrated in some studies. Combined resection is expected to be the optimal strategy for patients with CRC and SCRLM. However, traditional laparotomy is traumatic, and the treatment outcome of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is still obscure. AIM To compare the treatment outcomes of MIS and open surgery (OS) for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM. METHODS A systematic search through December 22, 2018 was conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library). All studies comparing the clinical outcomes of MIS and OS for patients with CRC and SCRLM were included by eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. The quality of the pooled study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The publication bias was evaluated by a funnel plot and the Begg’s and Egger’s tests. Fixed- and random-effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. RESULTS Ten retrospective cohort studies involving 502 patients (216 patients in the MIS group and 286 patients in the OS group) were included in this study. MIS was associated with less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-130.09, 95% confidence interval (CI):-210.95 to -49.23, P = 0.002] and blood transfusion [odds ratio (OR)= 0.53, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.95, P = 0.03], faster recovery of intestinal function (WMD =-0.88 d, 95%CI:-1.58 to -0.19, P = 0.01) and diet (WMD =-1.54 d, 95%CI:-2.30 to -0.78, P < 0.0001), shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD =-4.06 d, 95%CI:-5.95 to -2.18, P < 0.0001), and lower rates of surgical complications (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.37 to 0.99, P = 0.04). However, the operation time, rates and severity of overall complications, and rates of general complications showed no significant differences between the MIS and OS groups. Moreover, the overall survival and disease-free survival after MIS were equivalent to those after OS. CONCLUSION Considering the studies included in this meta-analysis, MIS is a safe and effective alternative technique for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM. Compared with OS, MIS has less intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion and quicker postoperative recovery. Furthermore, the two groups show equivalent long-term outcomes.

Robotic-vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China

BACKGROUND Reports in the field of robotic surgery for rectal cancer are increasing year by year.However,most of these studies enroll patients at a relatively early stage and have small sample sizes.In fact,studies only on patients with locally advanced rectal cancer(LARC)and with relatively large sample sizes are lacking.AIM To investigate whether the short-term outcomes differed between robotic-assisted proctectomy(RAP)and laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy(LAP)for LARC.METHODS The clinicopathological data of patients with LARC who underwent robotic-or laparoscopic-assisted radical surgery between January 2015 and October 2019 were collected retrospectively.To reduce patient selection bias,we used the clinical baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients as covariates for propensity-score matching(PSM)analysis.Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.RESULTS The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort.Compared with the LAP group,the RAP group had less intraoperative blood loss,lower volume of pelvic cavity drainage,less time to remove the pelvic drainage tube and urinary catheter,longer distal resection margin and lower rates of conversion(P<0.05).However,the time to recover bowel function,the harvested lymph nodes,the postoperative length of hospital stay,and the rate of unplanned readmission within 30 days postoperatively showed no difference between the two groups(P>0.05).The rates of total complications and all individual complications were similar between the RAP and LAP groups(P>0.05).CONCLUSION This retrospective study indicated that RAP is a safe and feasible method for LARC with better short-term outcomes than LAP,but we have to admit that the clinically significant of part of indicators are relatively small in the practical situation.

Role of minimally invasive techniques in gastrointestinal surgery:Current status and future perspectives

In recent years,the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer has remained high.Currently,surgical resection is still the most effective method for treating gastrointestinal cancer.Traditionally,radical surgery depends on open surgery.However,traditional open surgery inflicts great trauma and is associated with a slow recovery.Minimally invasive surgery,which aims to reduce postoperative complications and accelerate postoperative recovery,has been rapidly developed in the last two decades;it is increasingly used in the field of gastrointestinal surgery and widely used in early-stage gastrointestinal cancer.Nevertheless,many operations for gastrointestinal cancer treatment are still performed by open surgery.One reason for this may be the challenges of minimally invasive technology,especially when operating in narrow spaces,such as within the pelvis or near the upper edge of the pancreas.Moreover,some of the current literature has questioned oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer.Overall,the current evidence suggests that minimally invasive techniques are safe and feasible in gastrointestinal cancer surgery,but most of the studies published in this field are retrospective studies and casematched studies.Large-scale randomized prospective studies are needed to further support the application of minimally invasive surgery.In this review,we summarize several common minimally invasive methods used to treat gastrointestinal cancer and discuss the advances in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer in detail.