Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: Perioperative and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of a Single-Center Analysis Compared with Laparoscopic and Open Approach

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Robotic-assisted surgery is an attractive and promising option with unique advantages in rectal cancer surgery, but the optimal surgical approach is still debatable. Therefore, we aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the robotic-assisted approach with the laparoscopic-assisted and open approaches. <b>Methods:</b> A single referral center in Israel retrospectively reviewed all patients that underwent an elective rectal resection for primary non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2010 and 2020. The cohort was separated into three groups according to the surgical approach: robotic, laparoscopic, or open. <b>Results:</b> The cohort included 526 patients with a median age of 64 years (range 31-89), of whom 103 patients were in the robotic group, 144 in the open group, and 279 patients in the laparoscopic group. The robotic group had significantly more lower rectal tumors (24.3% versus 12.7% and 6%, respectively, <i>p</i> < 0.001), more locally advanced tumors (65.6% versus 51.2% and 50.2%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.004), and higher rates of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (70.9% versus 54.2% and 39.5%, respectively, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Conversion to an open laparotomy was more common in the laparoscopy group (23.1% versus 6.8%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.001). The open approach had higher rates of intraoperative complications (23.2% compared with 10.7% and 13.5% in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.011), longer hospital stays (10 days compared with 7 and 8 days, respectively, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and higher rates of postoperative complications (76% compared with 68.9% and 59.1%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.002). The groups were similar in the number of harvested lymph nodes (14) and the incidence of positive resection margins (2.1%). The 5-year overall survival in the robotic group was 92.3% compared with 90.5% and 88.3% in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.12). The 5-year disease-free survival in the robotic group was 68% compared with 71% and 63%, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.2). <b>Conclusions:</b> The robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches had similar histopathological outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes. The open approach was associated with higher rates of perioperative morbidity. These findings suggest that the robotic approach is safe and effective in rectal cancer surgery.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2025-03-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17050859
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.32
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: Perioperative and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of a Single-Center Analysis Compared with Laparoscopic and Open Approach

Michael Goldenshluger, Shachar Laks, Alexander Lebedeyev, Yasmin Anderson et al.
7 citations
Cancers
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
7.32
article

Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: Perioperative and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of a Single-Center Analysis Compared with Laparoscopic and Open Approach

Michael Goldenshluger, Shachar Laks, Alexander Lebedeyev, Yasmin Anderson, Lior Segev, Ofir Gruper
article en
7 citations

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Robotic-assisted surgery is an attractive and promising option with unique advantages in rectal cancer surgery, but the optimal surgical approach is still debatable. Therefore, we aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the robotic-assisted approach with the laparoscopic-assisted and open approaches. <b>Methods:</b> A single referral center in Israel retrospectively reviewed all patients that underwent an elective rectal resection for primary non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2010 and 2020. The cohort was separated into three groups according to the surgical approach: robotic, laparoscopic, or open. <b>Results:</b> The cohort included 526 patients with a median age of 64 years (range 31-89), of whom 103 patients were in the robotic group, 144 in the open group, and 279 patients in the laparoscopic group. The robotic group had significantly more lower rectal tumors (24.3% versus 12.7% and 6%, respectively, <i>p</i> < 0.001), more locally advanced tumors (65.6% versus 51.2% and 50.2%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.004), and higher rates of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (70.9% versus 54.2% and 39.5%, respectively, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Conversion to an open laparotomy was more common in the laparoscopy group (23.1% versus 6.8%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.001). The open approach had higher rates of intraoperative complications (23.2% compared with 10.7% and 13.5% in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.011), longer hospital stays (10 days compared with 7 and 8 days, respectively, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and higher rates of postoperative complications (76% compared with 68.9% and 59.1%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.002). The groups were similar in the number of harvested lymph nodes (14) and the incidence of positive resection margins (2.1%). The 5-year overall survival in the robotic group was 92.3% compared with 90.5% and 88.3% in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.12). The 5-year disease-free survival in the robotic group was 68% compared with 71% and 63%, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.2). <b>Conclusions:</b> The robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches had similar histopathological outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes. The open approach was associated with higher rates of perioperative morbidity. These findings suggest that the robotic approach is safe and effective in rectal cancer surgery.

CancersVol. 17(5)
Tel Aviv University (IL), Sheba Medical Center (IL), Wolfson Medical Center (IL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
7.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.