Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety Between da Vinci Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: The intersphincteric resection (ISR) is beneficial for saving patients' anus to a large extent and restoring original bowel continuity. Laparoscopic ISR (L-ISR) has its drawbacks, such as two-dimensional images, low motion flexibility, and unstable lens. Recently, da Vinci robotic ISR (R-ISR) is increasingly used worldwide. The purpose of this article is to compare the feasibility, safety, oncological outcomes, and clinical efficacy of R-ISR vs. L-ISR for low rectal cancer.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to identify comparative studies of R-ISR vs. L-ISR. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were extracted. Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.Results: Five studies were included. In total, 510 patients were included, of whom 273 underwent R-ISR and 237 L-ISR. Compared with L-ISR, R-ISR has significantly lower estimated intraoperative blood loss (MD = −23.31, 95% CI [−41.98, −4.64], P = 0.01), longer operative time (MD = 51.77, 95% CI [25.68, 77.86], P = 0.0001), hospitalization days (MD = −1.52, 95% CI [−2.10, 0.94], P < 0.00001), and postoperative urinary complications (RR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.16, 0.82], P = 0.02).Conclusions: The potential benefits of R-ISR are considered as a safe and feasible alternative choice for the treatment of low rectal tumors.

Clinical Efficacy of Different Approaches for Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection of Low Rectal Cancer: A Comparison Study

Background: The operative results of different approaches for the laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (LAISR) of low rectal cancer vary, and the patient characteristics associated with the best outcomes for each procedure have not been reported. We compared the efficacy of different approaches for LAISR of low rectal cancer and discussed the surgical indications for each approach.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data from 235 patients with low rectal cancer treated via LAISR from October 2010 to September 2016. Patients underwent either the transabdominal approach for ISR (TAISR, n=142), the transabdominal perineal approach for ISR (TPAISR, n=57), or the transanal pull-through approach for ISR (PAISR, n=36).Results: The PAISR and TAISR groups exhibited shorter operation times and less intraoperative blood loss than the TPAISR group. The anastomotic distance was shorter in the PAISR and TPAISR groups than in the TAISR group. No differences in the ability to perform radical resection, overall complications, postoperative recovery, Wexner score recorded 12 months after ostomy closure, three-year disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, or overall survival (OS) were observed among the three groups.Conclusions: TAISR, TPAISR, and PAISR have unique advantages and do not differ in terms of operation safety, patient outcomes, or anal function. TPAISR requires a longer time to complete and is associated with more bleeding and a slower recovery of anal function. PAISR should be considered when TAISR cannot ensure a negative distal margin and the tumor and BMI are relatively small; otherwise, TPAISR is required.

Comparation of Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection and Abdominoperineal Resection for Ultra-Low Rectal Cancer Patients - a Retrospective Analysis, and a Meta-analysis of Oncology Outcome

Purpose The aim of the study is to evaluate the surgical and oncology outcomes between laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection (LISR) and laparoscopic-assisted Abdominoperineal Resection (LARC) for ultra-low rectal cancer patients by using a retrospective analysis, and a meta-analysis of the literature was carried out to further validate the oncology outcome. Patients and methods: Between April 2014 and December 2015, a total of 38 rectal cancer patients who underwent LISR and 41 LARC patients were enrolled in this study. The comparison between the groups was based on clinicopathological characteristics and surgical outcomes. Meta-analysis of published studies, exploring oncology outcome of between LISR and LARC, was carried out using STATA 12.0 software. Results Operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication rates was similar between LISR group and LARC group; Patients undergoing LISR also had a similarly 5-year local recurrence and overall survival rate with LAPR. Meta-analysis showed that five studies, which included a total of 791 patients were final involved for this analysis. Comparing APR, ISR patients obtain similarly 5-years recurrence rate and 5-years survival rate. Conclusion This study suggests that LISR is as technically feasible, safe, and effective as LARC for treating patients with low rectal cancer. Additional high-powered randomized trials are needed to determine whether LISR truly offers any advantages.