Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer

Abstract

Throughout its more than 20 years of activity, surgical robot systems have been incorporating different improvements that replace the inherent limitations of laparoscopic surgery. Some of these improvements consist of changes in the ergonomics and reproduction of hand movements with articulated instruments. In addition, infrared technology and slimmer arms have been incorporated to facilitate procedures in multiple abdominal quadrants without requiring repositioning. This development in technology has meant that more robotic procedures are performed each year is in general surgery. It has experienced important growth in the colorectal field, where it is shown to be feasible and safe.

The clinical impact of robot‐assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery associated with robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy

“…Longer operation time is one of the demerits of robotic surgery. Previous literatures show longer operative time for robotic surgery with significant differences from open or laparoscopic surgery 12 . However, Jan and Kim reported that robot TME has a shorter learning curve 13 .…”

“…Previous literatures show longer operative time for robotic surgery with significant differences from open or laparoscopic surgery. 12 However, Jan and Kim reported that robot TME has a shorter learning curve. 13 We have performed 74 robotassisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgeries in this period by four operators.…”

Essential updates 2020/2021: Advancing precision medicine for comprehensive rectal cancer treatment

“… 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 Robotic systems are a promising advanced technology that could overcome some of the inherent limitations of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, providing high‐quality three‐dimensional images, articulating instruments, stable camera work, and motion scale function. 20 , 21 The ROLARR trial was performed in a multicenter setting to compare robotic‐assisted and conventional laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, indicating that robotic‐assisted laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy (8.1% vs 12.2%). 22 However, a retrospective cohort study based on the National Clinical Database in Japan found a significantly lower conversion rate to open surgery in robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery than in conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (0.7% vs 2.0%), less intraoperative blood loss (15 ml vs 20 ml), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (13 d vs 14 d).…”

Incomplete lymphatic sealing around the inferior mesenteric artery is a risk factor for chylous ascites in robotic rectal cancer surgery

“…[1][2][3] RS has undergone many new improvements, including three-dimensional visualization and articulated instruments that assist in complex and precise movements, but energy device options are not as abundant for RS as for conventional LS. 1 In addition, considering costs, RS for rectal cancer often relies only on monopolar scissors (MS) without a bipolar vessel sealing device (BVSD) or ultrasonic coagulating shears (USC). 4,5 Results of a meta-analysis have shown that RS for rectal cancer is acceptable in terms of perioperative complications compared with conventional LS.…”

“…Robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer has rapidly increased in recent years and can safely provide oncological outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) 1–3 . RS has undergone many new improvements, including three‐dimensional visualization and articulated instruments that assist in complex and precise movements, but energy device options are not as abundant for RS as for conventional LS 1 . In addition, considering costs, RS for rectal cancer often relies only on monopolar scissors (MS) without a bipolar vessel sealing device (BVSD) or ultrasonic coagulating shears (USC) 4,5 …”