Comparison of early experience of robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision using propensity score matching

Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without data from large-scale randomised trials to support its use. We compared short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer to predict long-term outcomes. Between July, 1996, and July, 2002, we undertook a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 794 patients with colorectal cancer from 27 UK centres. Patients were allocated to receive laparoscopic-assisted (n=526) or open surgery (n=268). Primary short-term endpoints were positivity rates of circumferential and longitudinal resection margins, proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours, and in-hospital mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial has been assigned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN74883561. Six patients (two [open], four [laparoscopic]) had no surgery, and 23 had missing surgical data (nine, 14). 253 and 484 patients actually received open and laparoscopic-assisted treatment, respectively. 143 (29%) patients underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. Proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours did not differ between treatments (18 [7%] patients, open vs 34 [6%], laparoscopic; difference -0.3%, 95% CI -3.9 to 3.4%, p=0.89), and neither did in-hospital mortality (13 [5%] vs 21 [4%]; -0.9%, -3.9 to 2.2%, p=0.57). Apart from patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer, rates of positive resection margins were similar between treatment groups. Patients with converted treatment had raised complication rates. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cancer of the colon is as effective as open surgery in the short term and is likely to produce similar long-term outcomes. However, impaired short-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum do not yet justify its routine use.

Compared with open resection, laparoscopic resection of rectal cancers is associated with improved short-term outcomes, but high-level evidence showing similar long-term outcomes is scarce. We aimed to compare survival outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for patients with mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer.

The feasibility and safety of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) transanal endoscopic rectosigmoid resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) was previously demonstrated in human cadavers and a porcine survival model. We report the first clinical case of a NOTES transanal resection for rectal cancer using TEM and laparoscopic assistance, performed by a team of surgeons from Barcelona and Boston with extensive experience with NOTES and minimally invasive approaches to colorectal diseases. Transanal endoscopic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision using the TEM platform was performed in a 76-year-old woman with a T2N2 rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation. Laparoscopic visualization and assistance with retraction and exposure during rectosigmoid mobilization was provided through one 5-mm port, which was later used as the stoma site, and 2-mm needle ports, one of which was used as a drain site. The specimen was transected transanally followed by handsewn coloanal anastomosis. The procedure was completed successfully with an operative time of 4 hours and 30 minutes. Mesorectal excision was complete. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the fourth postoperative day. The final pathology demonstrated pT1N0 with 23 negative lymph nodes and negative proximal, distal, and radial margins. NOTES transanal endoscopic rectosigmoid resection using TEM and laparoscopic assistance is feasible and safe. Careful patient selection and improvement in NOTES instrumentation are critical to optimize this approach before widespread clinical application.