Minimally Invasive Lower Anterior Resections - Better than Open But Not All the Same

Background/Objective: Optimal approach for lower anterior resection has been closely debated. The relatively new addition of the robotic approach adds a layer of complexity to this topic. The majority of the literature has compared the possible approaches between two techniques; however, only a few studies have comprehensively compared all 3 approaches at the same time, especially in a non-academic center.Study Design: This is a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database of data from a large group of private-practice colorectal surgeons in a large metropolitan area. Specifically, rectal resections using open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches were queried. A total of 130 patients underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic oncological lower anterior resection from 2016 to January 2020.Results: Statistical significance of length of stay was noted between the three approaches with the mean length of stay for open being 8.08 days, laparoscopic being 7.04 days, and robotic being 4.96 days (P < .005). No statistical significance was noted for estimated blood loss, operating time, or postoperative complications including anastomotic leak, ileus, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, surgical site infection, and urinary tract infection. When directly comparing any minimally invasive surgery approach to open, estimated blood loss was decreased in addition to the shortened length of stay (P < .05).Conclusions: This study demonstrates that MIS LAR has significant benefit over the open approach. However, finding that robotic surgery had was superior to laparoscopic LAR which was surprising and important. This experience in the private world raises the question as to whether robotic LAR should be considered the standard of care.