Background/Objectives: Robotic-assisted surgery is an attractive and promising option with unique advantages in rectal cancer surgery, but the optimal surgical approach is still debatable. Therefore, we aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the robotic-assisted approach with the laparoscopic-assisted and open approaches. Methods: A single referral center in Israel retrospectively reviewed all patients that underwent an elective rectal resection for primary non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2010 and 2020. The cohort was separated into three groups according to the surgical approach: robotic, laparoscopic, or open. Results: The cohort included 526 patients with a median age of 64 years (range 31–89), of whom 103 patients were in the robotic group, 144 in the open group, and 279 patients in the laparoscopic group. The robotic group had significantly more lower rectal tumors (24.3% versus 12.7% and 6%, respectively, p < 0.001), more locally advanced tumors (65.6% versus 51.2% and 50.2%, respectively, p = 0.004), and higher rates of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (70.9% versus 54.2% and 39.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). Conversion to an open laparotomy was more common in the laparoscopy group (23.1% versus 6.8%, respectively, p = 0.001). The open approach had higher rates of intraoperative complications (23.2% compared with 10.7% and 13.5% in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively, p = 0.011), longer hospital stays (10 days compared with 7 and 8 days, respectively, p < 0.001), and higher rates of postoperative complications (76% compared with 68.9% and 59.1%, respectively, p = 0.002). The groups were similar in the number of harvested lymph nodes (14) and the incidence of positive resection margins (2.1%). The 5-year overall survival in the robotic group was 92.3% compared with 90.5% and 88.3% in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = 0.12). The 5-year disease-free survival in the robotic group was 68% compared with 71% and 63%, respectively (p = 0.2). Conclusions: The robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches had similar histopathological outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes. The open approach was associated with higher rates of perioperative morbidity. These findings suggest that the robotic approach is safe and effective in rectal cancer surgery.

Background: Pathological complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer is associated with improved prognosis. Accurately predicting who will achieve pCR could theoretically eliminate the need for surgery for these patients. We aimed to compare pCR and non-pCR rectal cancer patients following neoadjuvant therapy, searching for clinical predictors for pCR and comparing oncological outcomes between these groups. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent a curative-intent rectal resection between 2010 and 2020 for primary non-metastatic rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy. The cohort (263 patients) was divided into two groups according to the pathological results from surgery: the pCR group (53 patients) and the non-pCR group (210 patients). Results: The groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, and staging, but tumors of the pCR group were significantly higher in the rectum (mean distance from the anal verge 7.92 cm versus 6.9 cm respectively, p = 0.04), and more of them were located at the posterior rectal wall (37.7% versus 24.3%, p = 0.049). Multivariate analysis found posterior location and tumor height to be significantly associated with pCR (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.11–4.45, p = 0.023), (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03–1.27, p = 0.015). The 5-year overall survival was 95.6% in the pCR group compared with 87.5% in the non-pCR group (p = 0.09), and the 5-year disease-free survival was 92.7% versus 64.5%, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Tumor location at the posterior wall of the rectum and higher tumor location were found to be associated with pCR. Patients achieving pCR demonstrate improved prognosis compared with non-pCR patients.

Background/Objectives: Postoperative paralytic ileus (POI) is a common complication after rectal resections. Although it is often argued that laparoscopic or robotic surgery reduces ileus compared to open surgery, research indicates that the incidence rates remain considerably high after minimally invasive surgery (MIS), and it is unclear whether laparoscopy or robotic surgery confers lower ileus rates. Furthermore, the literature lacks consistency in defining ileus and does not adequately address the severity levels of this complication. This study aims to compare the incidence and severity of ileus after open, laparoscopic, and robotic oncologic rectal resections, using definitions established in the current literature. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study including patients who underwent rectal resection in a single tertiary academic-affiliated hospital between the years 2014 and 2019. The study compared patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgeries to those who underwent open surgery. Results: The study involved 337 patients who underwent oncologic rectal resection. Among them, 188 underwent laparoscopic, 59 robotic and 90 underwent open surgery. The overall incidence of postoperative paralytic ileus (POI) was 19.6%, with a significant difference observed between surgical approaches: 15.4% in the MIS group compared to 31.1% in the open surgery group (p < 0.001). Additionally, a lower ileus incidence was noted between the robotic (8.5%) and laparoscopic (17.6%) subgroups, but it did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.092). The severity of ileus did not differ significantly between laparoscopic, robotic and open surgery. Ileus risk factors that were found included advanced age, male gender, high ASA score, preoperative anemia, intraoperative bowel injury, and postoperative opioid use. Conclusions: MIS for rectal cancer is linked to a significantly lower rate of POI compared to open surgery. However, when ileus does occur, its severity is comparable across all techniques.