Abstract
OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to compare robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) with laparoscopic TME (L-TME) in a series of consecutive rectal cancer patients.BACKGROUND:R-TME and L-TME have drawn contradictory reports. A recent phase III trial (ROLARR) concluded that R-TME performed by surgeons with varying experience did not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection.PATIENTS AND METHODS:In this retrospective single-center cohort study (8/2008 to 4/2015), data were prospectively registered. A total of 200 L-TME and 200 R-TME were operated consecutively without selection. The primary outcome was the conversion rate to open laparotomy or transanal TME. The secondary endpoints were type of anastomosis, operative time, postoperative morbidity, circumferential radial (CRM) and distal margins, quality of life, bladder and sexual dysfunction, and oncological outcomes.RESULTS:Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Type of anastomosis [colo-anal anastomosis (CAA) 40% vs 49%; p < 0.001], transanal TME (5% vs 13%; p = 0.005), and conversion rate (2% vs 9.5%; odd ratio (OR): 0.19 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05-0.60]) were significantly different. Intersphincteric resection (39% vs 47%), diverting stoma (66.5% vs 68%), CRM involvement, median operative time (243 vs 232 min), and R0 resection rate were similar. Conversion risk was lower for R-TME in male patients and those with small tumors (< 5 cm). The 3-year overall survival rate was 84.1% [77.3-88.9%] and 88.4% [82.9-92.2%] in the R-TME and L-TME group. No significant differences were reported in quality of life, and urinary or sexual function.CONCLUSIONS:R-TME is less likely to be converted to open surgery than L-TME; operative time and curative pathologic criteria are equivalent. Future prospective trial should compare standardized procedures performed by experienced surgeons for subgroups of high-risk patients.