key: cord-0779209-faaeyecr authors: Yamamoto, Seiichiro title: Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews date: 2020-08-29 journal: Ann Gastroenterol Surg DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12385 sha: 98c69cc2d4663460793ba852d858741c0c4be0ff doc_id: 779209 cord_uid: faaeyecr Regarding the surgical approaches for rectal cancer, many techniques have been reported in randomized controlled trials, meta‐analyses, and reviews of comparisons between two techniques, e.g. open surgery vs laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery vs robotic surgery, or laparoscopic surgery vs transanal total mesorectal excision. Since robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision were developed after laparoscopic surgery had become an established minimally invasive technique, they have each been compared with laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, a review was performed to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision, and to perform such comparisons among ≥3 of the above mentioned approaches, in the expectation that this review will serve as a reference for aiding treatment selection in future. The results of the current review suggest that all of the examined procedures have advantages and disadvantages, but that there are no decisive factors that could be used to select one procedure over any other. At the present time it cannot be demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, transanal total mesorectal excision, or open surgery is superior to the other techniques, and it is important to select the best technique for each patient from among those that a surgeon can perform. It is also important to maintain a flexible attitude that allows new techniques to be adopted as needed in the future. Although open surgery (OpS) has conventionally been performed as the only form of radical surgery for rectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery (LaS) is widely indicated for rectal cancer as a minimally invasive surgery. The therapeutic outcomes of these procedures have been compared in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, which confirmed that there were no significant differences in long-term prognosis. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] In 2017, it was reported that the quality of LaS was significantly lower than that of OpS, and thus, concerns about the safety of LaS could not be refuted. [9] [10] [11] [12] However, no data suggesting that the long-term prognosis of LaS is worse than that of OpS were obtained in these clinical studies, and at present the safety of LaS is widely accepted when it is performed by a sufficiently experienced laparoscopic surgical team. [13] [14] [15] On the other hand, the first robotic surgery (RoS) for rectal cancer was reported in 2006, and the frequency of RoS for rectal cancer has been increasing due to technical advances and the accumulation of experience among surgeons. 12, [16] [17] [18] [19] In addition, the indications for and frequency of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) have also been increasing, demonstrating its efficacy. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Important information regarding TaTME has been continuously reported from the international TaTME registry. [23] [24] [25] However, concerns regarding its long-term oncological outcomes are still reported, and TaTME remains a developing technique which should be performed with care. 12, 26, 27 Recently, robotic TaTME, in which a robotic approach is used for the laparoscopic abdominal portion of TaTME, and the robotic transanal approach have been reported. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] At present, technologies continue to advance, and surgeons select the best approach from among the surgical techniques that they can perform based on their deep understanding of the merits and limitations of each approach. Advances in surgical technology make it necessary to examine the efficacy of new technologies, and it is essential to examine the safety and efficacy of surgery for cancer, in addition to its long-term prognosis. Regarding the four surgical approaches for rectal cancer, many comparisons between two techniques, e.g. OpS vs LaS, LaS vs RoS, and LaS vs TaTME, have been reported in RCTs, meta-analyses, and reviews. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] These comparisons were performed between LaS and other approaches because LaS was the first type of minimally invasive surgery and was initially compared with conventional OpS, followed by RoS and TaTME, which were subsequently developed as different types of minimally invasive surgery. On the other hand, in actual clinical practice, few medical institutions or surgeons perform all four approaches, or even three of the approaches, on a routine basis, and thus it is difficult to conduct an RCT that compares three or four of the approaches at once. This review was conducted to compare the surgical outcomes of RoS and TaTME, and to perform such comparisons among three or more approaches, in the expectation that it will serve as a reference for aiding treatment selection in the future. We reviewed studies that were published since 2018 in order to consider the latest findings. Since RoS and TaTME were developed after LaS had become established as a minimally invasive technique, RoS and TaTME have each been compared with LaS. In addition, since these techniques are indicated for the same patients, few medical institutions perform both RoS and TaTME. Thus, it is rare for RoS and TaTME to ever be compared directly. Recently, some studies involving direct comparisons between RoS and TaTME have been published (Table 1 ). Perez et al 42 compared the intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of 60 and 55 cases in which RoS and TaTME, respectively, were performed for low or middle third rectal cancer using data from a prospective database. In this study, all of the robotic surgical procedures were performed at one institution, and all TaTME procedures were conducted at another institution. The operating time and perioperative complications rates did not differ between the groups, and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was wider in the RoS group than in the TaTME group, while none of the remaining oncological parameters exhibited intergroup differences. Therefore, it was concluded that both procedures should be considered equally feasible for low rectal cancer and as alternatives to conventional anterior resection (open or laparoscopic). Law et al 43 compared the intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of 80 cases of sphincter-saving RoS and 40 cases of TaTME for rectal cancer by analyzing a prospective mono-institutional database using propensity score matching. Some significant differences between baseline characteristics were observed including with regard to the level of the tumor from anal verge, and, after the matching procedure, the number of abdominal incisions and the size of the tumor were the only baseline characteristics that exhibited significant differences. The operating time was significantly shorter and the amount of intraoperative blood loss was lower in the TaTME group. Thus, they concluded that both RoS and TaTME can achieve favorable rectal cancer resection outcomes and that TaTME is associated with a shorter operating time, less intraoperative blood loss, and a higher rate of transanal specimen extraction. Gachabayov et al 44 compared histopathological metrics and/ or complication rates between TaTME and RoS for lower, middle, or upper rectal cancer. They performed a systematic search and included six observational studies involving 1572 patients (TaTME: 811; robotic TME: 761) in their meta-analysis. The CRM involvement rate, distal resection margin (mm), and complications rates did not differ between the procedures, and they concluded that compared with RoS performing TaTME for rectal cancer does not improve histopathological metrics or complication rates. Although RoS and TaTME have various merits and demerits, both procedures can produce favorable intraoperative and perioperative rectal cancer resection outcomes when performed by a specialist. Since 2018, two studies comparing OpS, LaS, and RoS have been published, which used different analytical methods ( Since 2018, two studies in which OpS, LaS, and TaTME were compared at single institutions have been published (Table 3) . Perdawood et al 47 conducted a case-matched study, based on data from a prospectively maintained database of lower, middle, or upper rectal cancer patients who underwent TaTME, and a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent laparoscopic TME (LaTME) or open TME (OpTME) prior to the period covered by the database. The baseline characteristics of the three groups were comparable, and TaTME resulted in lower rates of incomplete TME specimens than LaTME, but not OpTME, and the other pathological results of TaTME were not significantly superior to those of LaTME or OpTME. On the other hand, while TaTME resulted in shorter operation times, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, the complications and mortality rates of the three groups were comparable. Chen et al 48 however, this can be explained by the fact that only one team performed TaTME. TaTME achieved better pathological results and disease-free survival than OpS, but was not significantly superior to LaS. They also reported that there were no patients with CRMs of <1 mm in the TaTME group, whereas the equivalent frequencies for the LaS and OpS groups were 7.8% and 13.0%, respectively (P = .035). Moreover, the patients in the TaTME and LaS groups also significantly exhibited better disease-free survival than those in the OpS group (P < .01). Both studies were retrospective and single-institutional, and further studies are needed to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes and long-term oncological results of these approaches. Comparisons of OpS, LaS, RoS, and TaTME have been performed using several methods ( Table 4 ). The 2017 European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) collaborating group conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study in accordance with a pre-specified protocol, which included lower, middle, or upper rectal cancer patients who were scheduled to undergo elective total mesorectal excision for malignancy via any surgical approach. 49 Interestingly, they included patients that were scheduled to undergo RoS in the abdominal region and the TaTME approach in the transanal region. Overall, 9.0% of patients suffered anastomotic leakage. In the univariate analyses, both TaTME and robotic TaTME (P = .02) were found to be associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leakage than LaS. However, this association was lost after controlling for patient and disease factors, while strong associations with low rectal anastomosis and male sex remained. The positive CRM rate varied between the operative approaches: LaS: 3.2%, TaTME: 3.8%, OpS: 4.7%, RoS: 1%. They concluded that the TaTME approach is widely performed and is associated with acceptable surgical and pathological results. RoS, TaTME, and LaS produced similar outcomes with respect to macroscopic mesorectal excision, lymph node harvesting, and radial margin involvement, which were reflected by comparable local and LaS, although potential selection bias cannot be excluded. They concluded that all three surgical techniques were comparable in terms of TME quality and oncological outcomes and considered that good outcomes were achieved by individual surgeons selecting appropriate approaches based on their expertise. Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; TaTME, transanal total mesorectal excisionTME, total mesorectal excision. as needed in the future; however, it is also acceptable to only start learning a new procedure after its technical and oncological safety have been established since LaS, RoS, and TaTME each have specific advantages and disadvantages, and evaluations of these procedures are currently ongoing. Funding Information: Declaration of prior publication. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Seiichiro Yamamoto https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9879-1239 Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial Laparoscopic versus open surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Laparoscopic versus open surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-and long-term outcomes Laparoscopy for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 3-year follow-up outcomes Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial Pathologic outcomes of laparoscopic vs open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Essential advances in surgical and adjuvant therapies for colorectal cancer Disease-free survival and local recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: the Australasian laparoscopic cancer of the rectum randomized clinical trial Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage II to III rectal cancer: follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized controlled trial Laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer: a noninferiority meta-analysis of quality of surgical resection outcomes Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: current state and future perspective Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: operative technique and review of the literature Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence NOTES transanal rectal cancer resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic assistance Gallen Colorectal Consensus Expert Group. St.Gallen consensus on safe implementation of transanal total mesorectal excision Local recurrence after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a multicenter cohort study Transanal total mesorectal excision: International Registry results of the first 720 cases Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic failure in 1594 patients treated by transanal total mesorectal excision: results from the International TaTME Registry Predictive factors and risk model for positive circumferential resection margin rate after transanal total mesorectal excision in 2653 patients with rectal cancer Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been suspended in Norway Locoregional recurrences after transanal total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer during implementation Combined robotic transanal total mesorectal excision (R-taTME) and single-site plus oneport (R-SSPO) technique for ultra-low rectal surgery-initial experience with a new operation approach Combined transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) with laparoscopic instruments and abdominal robotic surgery in rectal cancer Hybrid abdominal robotic approach with conventional transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: feasibility and outcomes from a single institution Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision assisted by laparoscopic transabdominal approach: A preliminary twenty-case series report Da Vinci Single-Port robot-assisted transanal mesorectal excision: a promising preclinical experience Open versus laparoscopic surgery for advanced low rectal cancer: a large, multicenter, propensity score matched cohort study in Japan Circumferential resection margin after laparoscopic and open rectal resection: a nationwide propensity score matched cohort study Laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients in Germany: short and long-term results of a large 10-year population-based cohort Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers; has a paradigm change occurred? A systematic review by updated Meta-Analysis Robotic surgery for rectal cancer provides advantageous outcomes over laparoscopic approach: results from a large retrospective cohort Shortand long-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-to-low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis Total mesorectal excision for low and middle rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus transanal approach-a meta-analysis Meta-analysis of transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in management of rectal cancer Robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: a comparison of 115 cases Comparison of early experience of robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision using propensity score matching Does transanal total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer improve histopathology metrics and/or complication rates? A meta-analysis A comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision: trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis Oncologic and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic, open, and robotic approaches for rectal cancer resection: a multicenter, propensity score-weighted cohort study Effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparison of shortterm outcomes with laparoscopic and open surgeries Comparison of the shortterm outcomes in lower rectal cancer using three different surgical techniques: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TME), laparoscopic TME, and open TME An international multicentre prospective audit of elective rectal cancer surgery; operative approach versus outcome, including transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) Open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Systemic review and network meta-analysis comparing minimal surgical techniques for rectal cancer: quality of total mesorectum excision, pathological, surgical, and oncological outcomes Cost-effectiveness of current approaches in rectal surgery Comparison of outcome and cost among open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs A cost-effectiveness evaluation of surgical approaches to proctectomy