Robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center

Several retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety and technical feasibility of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS). The aim of the present study was to clarify the advantages of RALS for rectal cancer by comparing its short-term outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Between April, 2010 and April, 2015, a total of 974 patients underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer. After the exclusion of those who underwent open surgery, high anterior resection, lateral lymph node dissection, or multiple resection, 442 patients were enrolled in this study, including 203 who underwent RALS and 239 who underwent CLS. We compared the short-term outcomes of these two groups.

There was no case of conversion to open surgery in the RALS group, but 8 (3.3 %) cases in the CLS group (p = 0.009). Operative time was not significantly different, but blood loss was significantly less in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p < 0.001). The rate of urinary retention was significantly lower in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p = 0.018).

The short-term outcomes in this series provide further evidence that RALS may be superior to CLS for rectal cancer.