Refinement of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Techniques After 15?Years of Experience

Intoduction

In an effort to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with open esophagectomy, a minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy was introduced at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) in 1996. The objective of this article is to discuss the optimization and refinement of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques over the 15-year experience at UPMC. We also reviewed the literature on technical improvements in MIE.

Method

Literature highlights for MIE and related meta-analyses comparing open esophagectomy and MIE were reviewed. The rationale and outcomes of techniques refinements were discussed in detail.

Results

Most meta-analyses and systematic reviews confirm the feasibility and safety of MIE and suggest similar oncologic outcomes as compared with open esophagectomy. Since 1996, over 1,000 minimally invasive esophagectomies have been performed at UPMC. We have made several refinements to the MIE procedure that we believe significantly improved our surgical outcomes. It included adjustment of width of the gastric conduit, application of omental flap, and conversion from minimally invasive, three-hole esophagectomy to minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Conclusion

MIE became a mainstay in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer at UPMC. The technical improvements detailed above make the UPMC approach to MIE a feasible, safe, and efficient procedure.     

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position

Background

Minimally invasive esophageal surgery has arisen in an attempt to reduce the significant complications associated with esophagectomy. Despite proposed technical and physiological advantages, the prone position technique has not been widely adopted. This article reviews the current status of prone thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify all published clinical studies related to prone esophagectomy. Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched using the keywords “prone,” “thoracoscopic,” and “esophagectomy” to identify articles published between January 1994 and September 2010. A critical review of these studies is given, and where appropriate the technique is compared to the more traditional minimally invasive technique utilising the left lateral decubitus position.

Results

Twelve articles reporting the outcomes following prone thoracoscopic oesophagectomy were tabulated. These studies were all non-randomised single-centre prospective or retrospective studies of which four compared the technique to traditional minimally invasive surgery. Although prone esophagectomy is demonstrated as being both feasible and safe, there is no convincing evidence that it is superior to other forms of esophageal surgery. Most authors comment that the prone position is associated with superior surgical ergonomics and theoretically offers a number of physiological benefits.

Conclusion

The ideal approach within minimally invasive esophageal surgery continues to be a subject of debate since no single method has produced outstanding results. Further clinical studies are required to see whether ergonomic advantages of the prone position can be translated into improved patient outcomes.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Background

A recent randomized trial comparing minimally invasive (MIE) and open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer reported improved short-term outcomes. However, MIE has increased operative costs, and it is unclear whether the short-term benefits of MIE outweigh the increased operative costs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of MIE compared to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Methods

A decision-analysis model was developed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes after MIE and open esophagectomy from a health care system perspective with a time horizon of 1 year. Costs were represented in 2012 Canadian dollars, and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed parameter uncertainty.

Results

MIE was estimated to cost $1641 (95 % confidence interval 1565, 1718) less than open esophagectomy, with an incremental gain of 0.022 QALYs (95 % confidence interval 0.021, 0.023). MIE was therefore dominant over open esophagectomy. On deterministic sensitivity analyses, the results were most sensitive to variations in length of stay. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the base case result, with 66, 77, and 82 % probabilities of cost-effectiveness at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0/QALY, $50,000/QALY, and $100,000/QALY, respectively.

Conclusions

MIE is cost-effective compared to open esophagectomy in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.     

Clinical benefits of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position for esophageal cancer

Purposes

The clinical benefits of thoracoscopic radical esophagectomy in the prone position compared to conventional open esophagectomy have not been fully documented.

Methods

Forty-six patients with esophageal cancer who underwent MIE in the prone position (MIE-P group) were enrolled, and 46 case-matched controls that underwent open esophagectomy (OE group) were identified using propensity score methods to achieve a valid comparison of outcomes between MIE and open esophagectomy.

Results

The duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome was shorter in the MIE-P group than in OE group (P = 0.005). The time to first walking was earlier in the MIE-P group (P < 0.001). Although the vital capacity ratio (%VC) declined after the operation in both groups, the change ratio of the %VC was 85.3 % in the MIE-P group and 69.6 % in the OE group (P < 0.001). No mortality occurred in either group. The postoperative morbidity rate was lower in the MIE-P group (13 %) than in the OE group (30.4 %) (P = 0.020). Two patients (4.3 %) in the OE group and one patient in the MIE-P group (2.2 %) had pneumonia.

Conclusions

MIE in the prone position was associated with less impairment of the pulmonary function, earlier recovery of activity and lower subsequent morbidity compared to open esophagectomy. Further investigation of the long-term outcomes is, therefore, needed.     

Intrathoracic Esophagogastric Anastomosis Using a Linear Stapler Following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in the Prone Position

Background

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the prone position typically includes thoracoscopic mediastinal dissection and laparoscopic gastric tube construction, followed by esophagogastric anastomosis in the neck. We introduced an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis using linear staplers.

Technique

The lower mediastinal dissection and the gastric tube construction are done in the laparoscopic part of the operation. The esophagus is transected at the cranial level of the aortic arch after the completion of the upper mediastinal lymph node dissection in the prone position. The excess length of the gastric tube is sacrificed before making the anastomosis. Side-to-side esophagogastric anastomosis is performed using a 35-mm endoscopic linear stapler. The entry hole is closed with hand suturing using the posterior and the axillary port.

Results

Twenty-six patients with middle or lower esophageal tumor underwent MIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. The mean thoracoscopic procedure time was 302 min. One patient had an anastomotic leakage, which was successfully managed with drainage. There has been no anastomotic stenosis. Pneumonia was observed in two patients. There was no mortality.

Conclusions

MIE with an intrathoracic linear-stapled anastomosis with the patient in the prone position is safe and feasible.     

Assessment and Comparison of Recovery after Open and Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer: An Exploratory Study in Two Centers

Background

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) may lead to early restoration of health-related quality of life, but few prospective comparative studies have been performed. This exploratory study compared recovery between totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), laparoscopically assisted esophagectomy (LAE) and open surgery (OE).

Methods

A prospective study in 2 specialist centers recruited consecutive patients undergoing OE, LAE, or MIE for high-grade dysplasia or cancer. Patients completed validated questionnaires, the Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), modified Katz Scale, and modified Lawton and Brody Scale (assessing activities of daily living) before and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after surgery.

Results

A total of 97 patients (26 women; median age 64 years) were scheduled for surgery that was abandoned in 11 due to occult low-volume metastatic disease. In the remaining 86 (OE = 19, LAE = 31, and MIE = 36), there were 4 in-hospital deaths (4 %), and 54 postoperative complications (OE = 12, LAE = 19, and MIE = 23). Overall questionnaire compliance was high (77 %) and baseline scores similar in all groups, although clinical differences between groups were observed with earlier tumors and more squamous cell cancers selected for MIE. Following surgery fatigue levels increased dramatically and activity levels reduced in all groups. These gradually recovered to baseline following MIE and LAE within 6 months, but the ability to perform activities of daily living and most parameters of fatigue had not returned to baseline levels in the OE group.

Conclusions

This exploratory prospective nonrandomized study of recovery after different types of surgery for esophageal cancer showed possible small benefits to MIE. A much larger study is needed to confirm these findings.     

Immunological Changes After Minimally Invasive or Conventional Esophageal Resection for Cancer: A Randomized Trial

Background

This study was performed as a substudy analysis of a randomized trial comparing conventional open esophagectomy [open surgical technique (OE)] by thoracotomy and laparotomy with minimally invasive esophagectomy [minimally invasive procedure (MIE)] by thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. This additional analysis focuses on the immunological changes and surgical stress response in these two randomized groups of a single center.

Methods

Patients with a resectable esophageal cancer were randomized to OE (n = 13) or MIE (n = 14). All patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The immunological response was measured by means of leukocyte counts, HLA-DR expression on monocytes, the acute-phase response by means of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and interleukin-8 (IL-8), and the stress response was measured by cortisol, growth hormone, and prolactin. All parameters were determined at baseline (preoperatively) and 24, 72, 96, and 168 h postoperatively.

Results

Significant differences between the two groups were seen in favor of the MIE group with regard to leukocyte counts, IL-8, and prolactin at 168 h (1 week) postoperatively. For HLA-DR expression, IL-6, and CRP levels, there were no significant differences between the two groups, although there was a clear rise in levels upon operation in both groups.

Conclusion

In this substudy of a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and conventional open esophagectomies for cancer, significantly better preserved leukocyte counts and IL-8 levels were observed in the MIE group compared to the open group. Both findings can be related to fewer respiratory infections found postoperatively in the MIE group. Moreover, significant differences in the prolactin levels at 168 h after surgery imply that the stress response is better preserved in the MIE group. These findings indicate that less surgical trauma could lead to better preserved acute-phase and stress responses and fewer clinical manifestations of respiratory infections.     

Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer

Technical advancements and development of endoscopic equipment in thoracoscopic surgery have resulted in increase in the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, advantages with regard to short-term outcome and oncological feasibility of MIE have not been adequately established. To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and the outcomes are comparable to those of conventional open esophagectomy (OE). A study group recently reported the results of the first multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared MIE and OE. The incidence of pulmonary infection after surgery was markedly lower in the MIE group than in the OE group. Additional benefits of MIE included less operative blood loss, better postoperative patients’ quality of life, and shorter hospital stay. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE has not been scientifically proven because there have been no RCTs to verify the equivalency in long-term survival of patients undergoing MIE compared with that of patients undergoing OE. If future prospective studies indicate oncological benefits, MIE could truly become the standard care for patients with esophageal cancer.     

Zero Leaks With Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: a Team-Based Approach

Introduction:

Minimally invasive surgery has been applied in several ways to esophagectomy. Newer techniques have improved patient outcomes while maintaining oncological principles; however, mortality still exists. Most series have reported mortality rates ranging from 2% to 25%. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIE) in a non-university tertiary care center.

Methods:

MIE in the form of a combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic technique was performed cooperatively by 2 surgeons. Records of patients who underwent MIE between September 2005 and August 2008 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results:

Thirty-four patients underwent MIE over a 3-year period. There was a male predominance. Mean age at presentation was 62.6 years. Comorbidities were documented in 79% of the patients. Most patients (68%) presented with dysphagia. Two patients had end-stage achalasia, 1 had corrosive esophageal stricture, and 31 had esophageal malignancies. No mortalities were reported. No anastomotic leaks were observed. Eighteen (58%) patients with malignancy received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Six (33%) patients had a pathological response (CR) on final histopathology. The mean operating time was 294 minutes. The mean blood loss was 302 mL.

Conclusions:

Minimally invasive esophagectomy can be performed with results that meet and exceed reported benchmarks. A team-based approach greatly impacts the outcome of the surgery. This surgical technique must be standardized to achieve this outcome.     

Open Versus Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Background

The impact of minimally invasive esophagectomy on patient prognosis, particularly disease-free survival (DFS), has not been well addressed. We compared the clinical outcomes of open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

Sixty-three and 66 patients, nonrandomized, underwent open and thoracoscopic esophagectomies for ESCC between 2008 and 2011 were included. The clinicopathological data were reviewed retrospectively. Perioperative outcome, overall survival (OS), DFS, and the recurrence sites after open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy were compared.

Results

The open and thoracoscopic groups were comparable with regard to the total number of harvested lymph nodes and the percentage patients undergoing R0 resection. Fewer patients in the thoracoscopic group had pneumonia and wound complications. Intensive care unit (ICU) stay also was shorter in the thoracoscopic group. The recurrence pattern was similar in the two groups. In the open and thoracoscopic groups, the 3-year OS rates were 47.6 and 70.9 % (p = 0.031), respectively, and the 3-year DFS rates were 35 and 62.4 % (p = 0.007), respectively. However, the trends in better OS and DFS in the thoracoscopic group were not significant after stratification according to pathologic stage.

Conclusions

The perioperative benefit of thoracoscopic esophagectomy included fewer postoperative complications and shorter ICU stays. Mid-term OS and DFS associated with thoracoscopic techniques are at least equivalent to those associated with open procedures.     

Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the Charlson Comorbidity Index-Grade (CCI-G) on predicting outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

Methods

One hundred and forty-six patients who underwent esophagectomy between 1995 and 2011 for stage II and III cancer were selected and separated into open esophagectomy (Open) and MIE groups. Risk adjustment was performed using the CCI-G. The outcomes of interest were operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), lymph node harvest, length of hospital stay (LOS), major complications, 30-day mortality, and overall survival.

Results

Sixty-four patients (44 %) underwent Open while 71 (49 %) had MIE. An additional (7 %) were converted and classified with MIE. There was no significant difference between MIE and Open in terms of operative time. MIE had less EBL (mean difference = 234 mL, p < 0.001), higher lymph node harvest (mean = 7.4 nodes, p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (median = 1.5 days, p = 0.02). Atrial arrhythmias were the most frequent complication, occurring in 33 % of patients in both the MIE and the Open group (p = 0.988). Thirty-day mortality was 2 % for MIE and 5 % for Open (p = 0.459). Five-year survival was 41 % for MIE and 33 % for Open (p = 0.513). Operative approach, age, gender, BMI, clinical stage, and neoadjuvant therapy did not have any significant effect on the outcomes or overall survival. CCI-G influenced outcomes with operative time, LOS, cardiovascular complication, and anastomotic leak rate, favoring CCI-G 0 compared to CCI-G 3. Overall survival was worse for CCI-G 1 in comparison with CCI-G 0 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, p = 0.027].

Conclusions

MIE is a safe alternative to open esophagectomy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. The presence of comorbidities increased operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications while worsening overall survival.     

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a case–control study of thoracoscope versus mediastinoscope assistance

Objective

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been widely applied for esophageal carcinoma treatment. Thoracoscope-assisted transthoracic esophagectomy (TATTE) and mediastinoscope-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (MATHE) are two kinds of MIE. The objective of this study is to compare these two methods with respect to surgical safety and survival.

Methods

Single-institution experience with MATHE and TATTE was analyzed to assess morbidity, adequacy of tumor clearance, and survival. A pair-matched case–control study was performed to compare 54 patients who underwent either MATHE or TATTE between July 2000 and December 2009. Patients were matched by age, sex, comorbidity, forced expiratory volume in 1?s (FEV1), tumor location, and stage.

Results

Statistically significant differences between the MATHE group and the TATTE group were: shorter operative time for MATHE (194.4?min) versus TATTE (228.1?min), less blood loss during operation in the TATTE group (142.6?ml) versus the MATHE group (214.6?ml), and more lymph nodes retrieved in the TATTE group (19.1 nodes) versus the MATHE group (11.4 nodes). There was no difference in survival between the groups.

Conclusions

MATHE and TATTE are both technically feasible. TATTE can provide better visibility. TATTE has less blood loss compared with MATHE. More adequate tumor clearance in terms of lymph node dissection can be achieved with TATTE.     

Does Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) Provide for Comparable Oncologic Outcomes to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review

Purpose  

The aim of this study is to compare minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open techniques with respect to oncologic outcomes through analysis of the extent of lymph node clearance, number of lymph nodes retrieved, oncologic stage, and 5-year mortality.     

Pre-therapy Laparoscopic Feeding Jejunostomy is Safe and Effective in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer

Objective

Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy is a safe and effective means of providing enteral nutrition in the preoperative phase to esophageal cancer patients.

Design

This research is a retrospective case series.

Setting

This study was conducted in a university tertiary care center.

Patients

Between August 2007 and April 2012, 153 laparoscopic feeding jejunostomies were performed in patients 10 weeks prior to their definitive minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Main Outcome Measures

The outcome is measured based on the technique, safety, and feasibility of a laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy in the preoperative phase of esophageal cancer patients.

Results

One hundred fifty-three patients underwent a laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy approximately 1 and 10 week(s) prior to the start of their neoadjuvant therapy and definitive minimally invasive esophagectomy, respectively. Median age was 63 years. Of the patients, 75 % were males and 25 % were females. One hundred twenty-seven patients had gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and 26 had squamous cell carcinoma. All patients completed their neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. The median operative time was 65 min. We had no intraoperative complications, perforation, postoperative bowel necrosis, bowel torsion, herniation, intraperitoneal leak, or mortality as a result of the laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy. Four patients were noted to have superficial skin infection around the tube, and 11 patients required a tube exchange for dislodgment, clogging, and leaking around the tube. All patients progressed to their definitive surgical esophageal resection.

Conclusion

A laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy is technically feasible, safe, and can provide appropriate enteral nutrition in the preoperative phase of esophageal cancer patients.     

Is there any benefit to incorporating a laparoscopic procedure into minimally invasive esophagectomy? The impact on perioperative results in patients with esophageal cancer

Background  

The benefit of using the laparoscopic approach in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has not been established. We therefore compared the outcome of esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer performed with open surgery, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS)/laparotomy (hybrid MIE), and VATS/ laparoscopy (total MIE).     

The Incidence of Hiatal Hernia After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Introduction

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has evolved as a means to minimize the morbidity of an operation which is traditionally associated with a significant risk. However, this approach may have its own unique postoperative complications. In this study, we describe the incidence and outcomes of hiatal hernia in a cohort of MIE patients.

Methods

Clinical follow-up data on 114 patients who had undergone minimally invasive esophagectomy between 2003 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical presentation and computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest and abdomen were used to establish the diagnosis of hiatal herniation after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Age, gender, presenting complaint, comorbid conditions, clinical tumor stage, surgical specimen size, length and cost of hospital admissions, operation performed for hiatal herniation, and mortality were all recorded for analysis.

Results

Nine (8 %) of the 114 patients who underwent MIE had postoperative hiatal herniation. Five of these patients were asymptomatic. All patients except two who presented emergently were repaired laparoscopically on an elective basis. The average length of stay after hiatal hernia repair was 5.5 days (range 2–12) at an average charge of $40,785 (range $25,264–$83,953). At follow-up, one patient complained of symptoms associated with reflux.

Conclusion

Hiatal herniation is not a rare event after MIE. It is also associated with significant health-care cost and may be lethal. Most occurrences appear to be asymptomatic and, if detected, can be repaired with good resolution of symptoms, minimal associated morbidity, and no mortality.     

Significance of Thoracoscopy-Assisted Surgery with a Minithoracotomy and Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: The Experience of a Single Surgeon

Background

This retrospective study evaluated the surgical learning curve and outcomes of thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy.

Patients and Methods

The study group comprised a series of 92 patients with preoperatively diagnosed resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Additionally, the surgical outcomes in 79 esophageal cancer patients receiving open esophagectomies were compared. All patients underwent thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy in the lateral decubitus position. The short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated, and the surgical learning curve was assessed.

Results

The total operation time was 477.8?±?102.2 min, the thoracoscopic time was 157.9?±?61.3 min, the total blood loss was 554.4?±?280.5 ml, and the number of retrieved lymph nodes was 34.3?±?14.3. Postoperative morbidity was observed in 23 patients. After the surgeon??s first 40 cases, the surgical technique and short-term outcomes were stable. The 5-year disease-specific survival was 66.6% and the 5-year overall survival was 64.6% in patients receiving R0 thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy. Comparison of 5-year disease-specific survival rate according to tumor?Cnode?Cmetastasis stage between patients receiving R0 thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy and conventional open esophagectomy showed that there were no significant differences in survival in any stage between the two groups. Loco-regional recurrence was observed in 6 patients, distant recurrence in seven, and combined recurrence in nine after R0 thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in the pattern of recurrence between the two groups.

Conclusions

Thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer was technically feasible and oncologically satisfactory, according to the surgical learning curve.     

管状胃在微创食管外科中的应用

目的总结管状胃在微创食管外科术中应用的经验,以评价其可行性和手术安全性。方法2004年6月至2009年8月共有102例食管癌患者行微创食管切除管状胃消化道重建术,其中男71例,女31例;年龄37～79岁,平均年龄61.1岁。行胸腔镜+开腹三切口食管切除术62例,胸腔镜+腹腔镜食管切除术35例,开胸+腹腔镜两切口食管切除术5例。58例采用食管床径路,44例采用胸骨后径路。结果全组患者均顺利完成手术,围手术期病死率为2.0%(2/102),并发症发生率为41.2%(42/102),包括吻合口瘘、吻合口狭窄、肺部感染等。管状胃通过胸骨后径路上提至颈部的患者并发症发生率高于经食管床径路患者(56.8%vs.29.3%,P0.05),吻合口瘘发生率亦高于经食管床径路患者(34.1%vs.6.9%,P0.05),两种不同管状胃上提径路患者在吻合口狭窄、胃残端瘘、胃排空障碍、心肺并发症、乳糜胸以及喉返神经损伤等方面差异均无统计学意义。结论管状胃是微创食管切除后有效的消化道重建方式,应根据患者的具体情况个体化选择管状胃上提的径路。     

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is being performed more frequently for the minimally invasive management of rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

A search of the Medline and Embase databases was performed for studies that compared clinical or oncologic outcomes of conventional laparoscopic proctectomy with robot-assisted laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer. The methodological quality of the selected studies was critically assessed to identify studies suitable for inclusion. Meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model and analyzed by Review Manager. Clinical outcomes evaluated were conversion rates, operation times, length of hospital stay, and complications. Oncologic outcomes evaluated were circumferential margin status, number of lymph nodes collected, and distal resection margin lengths.

Results

Eight comparative studies were assessed for quality, and seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies were matched case-control studies, and five were unmatched. A total of 353 robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery proctectomy cases and 401 conventional laparoscopic surgery proctectomy cases were analyzed. Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate (P?=?0.03; 95% confidence interval 1?C12). There was no difference in complications, circumferential margin involvement, distal resection margin, lymph node yield, or hospital stay (P?=?NS).

Conclusions

Robot-assisted surgery decreased the conversion rate compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Other clinical outcomes and oncologic outcomes were equivalent. The benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery may differ between population groups.