The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic surgery at a single institution. Robotic surgery is regarded as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer were acceptable in previous reports. However, evidence of long-term feasibility and oncologic safety is required. Between April 2006 and August 2011, 217 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer with stage I-III disease were enrolled prospectively (robot, n = 133; laparoscopy, n = 84). Median follow-up period was 58 months (range, 4-80 months). Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes, morbidities, 5-year survival rates, prognostic factors, and cost were evaluated. Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes demonstrated no significant differences except for the conversion rate and length of hospital stay. The 5-year overall survival rate was 92.8% in robotic, and 93.5% in laparoscopic surgical procedures (P = 0.829). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 81.9% and 78.7%, respectively (P = 0.547). Local recurrence was similar: 2.3% and 1.2% (P = 0.649). According to the univariate analysis, this type of surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for long-term survival. The patient's mean payment for robotic surgery was approximately 2.34 times higher than laparoscopic surgery. No significant differences were found in the 5-year overall, disease-free survival and local recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures. We concluded that robotic surgery for rectal cancer failed to offer any oncologic or clinical benefits as compared with laparoscopy despite an increased cost.

As robotic surgery was developed with ergonomic designs, there are expectations that the technical advantages of robotic surgery can shorten the learning curve. However, there is no comparative study, so far, to evaluate the learning curve between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgeries. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection (LAR) with laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer.Patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic LAR by a single surgeon were compared retrospectively (robot n = 89 vs laparoscopy n = 89). Cumulative sum (CUSUM) was used to evaluate the learning curve. The patients were divided into phase 1 (initial learning curve period) and phase 2 (post-learning curve period). The perioperative clinicopathologic characteristics were compared by phases and surgical procedures.According to CUSUM, the learning curve of robotic LAR was the 44th case and laparoscopic LAR was the 41st case. The learning phases were divided as follows: phase 1 (cases 1-41) versus phase 2 (cases 42-89) in the laparoscopic group, and phase 1 (cases 1-44) versus phase 2 (cases 45-89) in the robotic group. Comparison between phase 1 and phase 2 in each type of surgery showed no significant difference for the perioperative outcomes. Comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries in each phase showed similar perioperative results. Pathologic outcomes were not significantly different in both procedures and phases.The learning curve of robotic LAR for rectal cancer was similar to laparoscopic LAR, and the clinicopathologic outcomes were similar in both the procedures.

We aimed to assess the survival benefits of primary tumor resection (PTR) followed by chemotherapy in patients with asymptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer with asymptomatic, synchronous, unresectable metastases compared to those of upfront chemotherapy alone. This was an open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial (ClnicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01978249). From May 2013 to April 2016, 48 patients (PTR, n = 26; upfront chemotherapy, n = 22) diagnosed with asymptomatic colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases in 12 tertiary hospitals were randomized (1:1). The primary endpoint was two-year overall survival. The secondary endpoints were primary tumor-related complications, PTR-related complications, and rate of conversion to resectable status. The two-year cancer-specific survival was significantly higher in the PTR group than in the upfront chemotherapy group (72.3% vs. 47.1%; p = 0.049). However, the two-year overall survival rate was not significantly different between the PTR and upfront chemotherapy groups (69.5% vs. 44.8%, p = 0.058). The primary tumor-related complication rate was 22.7%. The PTR-related complication rate was 19.2%, with a major complication rate of 3.8%. The rates of conversion to resectable status were 15.3% and 18.2% in the PTR and upfront chemotherapy groups. While PTR followed by chemotherapy resulted in better two-year cancer-specific survival than upfront chemotherapy, the improvement in the two-year overall survival was not significant.

Robotic surgery, used generally for colorectal cancer, has the advantages of a three-dimensional surgical view, steadiness, and seven degrees of robotic arms. However, there are disadvantages, such as a decreased sense of touch, extra time needed to dock the robotic cart, and high cost. Robotic surgery is performed using various techniques, with or without laparoscopic surgery. Because the results of this approach are reported to be similar to or less favorable than those of laparoscopic surgery, the learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery remains controversial. However, according to short- and long-term oncologic outcomes, robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe compared with conventional surgery. Advanced technologies in robotic surgery have resulted in favorable intraoperative and perioperative clinical outcomes as well as functional outcomes. As the technical advances in robotic surgery improve surgical performance as well as outcomes, it increasingly is being regarded as a treatment option for colorectal surgery. However, a multicenter, randomized clinical trial is needed to validate this approach.