Download PDF
Original Article  |  Open Access  |  23 Dec 2018

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision in low-lying rectal cancer

Views: 2476 |  Downloads: 836 |  Cited:  1
Mini-invasive Surg 2018;2:43.
10.20517/2574-1225.2018.42 |  © The Author(s) 2018.
Author Information
Article Notes
Cite This Article


Aim: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low-lying rectal cancer (≤ 5 cm from anal verge).

Methods: We enrolled 60 patients with stages I-III low-lying rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted TME at a single institution between July 2013 and April 2017.

Results: Of the 60 patients enrolled, 49 (81.6%) underwent preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Furthermore, among these 49 patients, 18 (36.7%) achieved a pathologic complete response. R0 resection was performed in 57 (95%) patients. Circumferential and distal resection margins were positive in 3 (5%) and 1 (1.6%) patients, respectively. The sphincter preservation rate was 93.3% (56/60). The overall complication rate was 21.7% (13/60), with an anastomotic leakage rate of 3.3% (2/60); most of these instances were mild and the patient recovered uneventfully.

Conclusion: The results demonstrate that robotic-assisted TME is safe and feasible for patients with low-lying rectal cancer.


Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision, low-lying rectal cancer, R0 resection, circumferential resection margin


In 2014, approximately 15,000 new cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in Taiwan, and in approximately 5,600 of cases, the patient died. Total mesolectal excision (TME) surgery, reported by Heald et al.[1] in 1982, has resulted in decreased 5-year local and overall recurrence rates. MacFarlane et al.[2] reported the importance of identifying the “holy plane”, that is, the surgeon’s dissection that will encompass the malignancy and yet preserve autonomic neural function. Radiation therapy offers noteworthy benefits to many patients with rectal cancer; preoperative radiation is superior to postoperative radiation. Preoperative radiation combined with chemotherapy (chemoradiotherapy) is used for locally advanced rectal cancer. A German study suggested that compared with postoperative chemoradiotherapy, preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved local control and was associated with reduced toxicity, but did not improve overall survival[3,4]. We achieved similar results from other studies[5-7].

Laparoscopic rectal surgery was as safe as open surgery and resulted in improved recovery rates[8,9]. However, the robotic system has several advantages over laparoscopic surgery, such as a high-definition three-dimensional vision, smooth movement of instruments, and absence of surgeon tremor. Thus, this robotic system can be anticipated to assist with dissections in the narrow pelvic cavity. Since the first robotic colon surgery in 2002[10], it is believed to have the potential to improve compliance with minimal invasive surgery. For rectal cancers, robotic surgery has been demonstrated to be as safe and feasible as laparoscopic and open surgical procedures[11-14].

The unique anatomy of the rectum, with its retroperitoneal location in the narrow pelvis, makes surgical access relatively difficult. The visceral endopelvic fascia, also known as fascia propria, is identified by a loose areolar tissue that circumferentially separates the rectum and mesorectum from surrounding pelvic structures. Removal of the rectum with the mesoretum intact ensures the complete removal of all lymph nodes and lymphatics from the diseased rectum and thus prevents oncologic contamination of the pelvis during surgery. In this study, we present the short-term oncological outcomes of patients with low-lying rectal cancer who underwent complete robotic-assisted TME.



The data included 60 patients with low-lying rectal cancer (adenocarcinoma) stages I-III who underwent complete robotic-assisted TME with the da Vinci® surgical system at a single institution between July 2013 and April 2017. The study was approved by the institutional review board of our hospital. Informed consent was obtained from each patient before performing the robotic surgery. All patients underwent routine preoperative colonoscopy and abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Low-lying rectal cancer was defined as a tumor located at or less than 5 cm from the anal verge. Patients with T3, T4, or N+ rectal cancer received preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Furthermore, a 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen or a fluoropyrimidine-based regimen was prescribed. Long-course radiotherapy (total of 5000 cGy in 25 fractions) was concurrently administered. The median time interval between radiotherapy completion and robotic surgery was 91 (range, 47-363) days.

We thoroughly evaluated the surgical outcomes, including the operation time (with operation, console, and docking times), blood loss, complication rates, and pathologic clearance, including the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and distal resection margin (DRM) rates. Docking time was defined as the time taken to position the robot and mount the robotic arms. Postoperative follow-up studies included physical examination and serum CEA assay every 3 months for the first 2 years and thereafter every 6 months. Chest radiograph was taken every 6 months and abdominopelvic CT was taken annually in the following years. Colonoscopy was performed annually.

Surgical procedure

The single-docking technique with five or six ports was used as the docking method[15]. The da Vinci® Si Surgical System was docked over the left flank of the patient. The second arm was engaged at the right upper trocar, and the first and third arms worked at the left medial and lateral trocars, respectively [Figure 1A and B]. An assistant on the right side of the patient used one or two ports for suctioning and additional retraction. High dissection and low ligation of the inferior mesenteric vessel and mobilization of the left colon was done but splenic flexure was not taken down regularly[16]. The inferior mesenteric vein was also identified but was not ligated immediately. The intraoperative view of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision showed more clear obviously [Figure 1C and D]. Complete robotic-assisted TME with single-docking technique was performed in all patients.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision in low-lying rectal cancer

Figure 1. A: Da Vinci docked from patient’s left side; B: port positions during single docking; C: intraoperative view of the distal rectum, Da Vinci view; D: intraoperative view of the distal rectum, laparoscopic view; E: intersphincteric resection with long-star retractor; F: coloanal anastomosis done; G: total mesorectal excision specimen

After complete mobilization of the sigmoid or descending colon, mesocolon, and entire rectum after TME, low anterior resection (LAR) with the double-staple technique, intersphincteric resection (ISR) with coloanal anastomosis [Figure 1E and F] and loop colostomy, or abdominoperineal resection was accordingly performed[16]. For the ISR of the perineal part, we used the Lone Star Retractor System® to assist operation. The specimen was then extracted and resected transanally (natural orifice specimen extraction, Figure 1G). Coloanal anastomosis was performed using the hand-sewn method. A loop colostomy of the transverse colon was created. A drain tube was placed into the pelvic cavity through laparoscopic assistance.

Statistical analysis

All data were statistically analyzed using SPSS Version 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All patients were followed up until their death, last follow-up, or 30 April 2017. The operation time was defined as the time between the initial skin incision and wound closure completion. A P value of < 0.05 denoted statistical significance. Overall survival was defined as the time from surgery to death or to the last date the patient was known to be alive. Disease-free survival was defined as the time from surgery to recurrence of cancer or to the last date the patient was known to be disease free. Overall survival and disease-free survival were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method.


Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes

Of the enrolled patients, 36 were men and 24 were women. The median age was 62 years (range, 24-92). Forty-nine (81.7%) patients had neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The details of patient characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes of 60 patients with low-lying rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision

Age (years, median) (range)  62 (32-87)
  24 (40%)
  36 (60%)
Distance from anal verge (cm, median) (range)  3.5 (1-5)
Pre-operation CCRT
  49 (81.7%)
  11 (18.3%)
Pre-operation chemotherapy regimen
  36 (73.5%)
  13 (26.5%)
Time interval between radiotherapy completion and robotic surgery (day, median) (range) (49 patients undergoing pre-operation chemotherapy)  91 (47-363)
ASA classification
  36 (60%)
  24 (40%)
BMI kg/m2 (median) (range)  23.07 (17.50-30.9)
  19 (31.7%)
  37 (61.7%)
  4 (6.6%)
Protective diverting colostomy
  45 (75%)
  15 (25%)
Docking time (min, median) (range)  5 (3-10)
Console time (min, median) (range)  215 (150-527)
Operation time (min, median) (range)  320 (240-710)
Estimated blood loss (mL, median)  95 (15-450)
Time of first flatus passage (day) (median, range)  2 (1-10)
Time of resuming soft diet (day) (median, range)  4 (2-13)
Postoperative hospital stay (day) (median, range)  6 (5-30)
Postoperative first day VAS pain score (median, range)  3 (1-7)

The most frequent surgical procedure performed was ISR (37/60, 61.7%). ISR with coloanal anastomosis was performed in 37 patients, and abdominoperineal resection was performed in 4 patients. Protective diverting loop transverse colostomy was performed in 45 patients, including 37 patients and 8 patients who underwent ISR and LAR, respectively. The median operating time was 320 min (range, 240-710), with a median blood loss of 95 mL (range, 15-450). Median length of stay was 6 days (range 5-30). No mortality was observed within 30 days following the procedure. Furthermore, no intraoperative complications or conversion to open surgery were noted.

Postoperative complications

Table 2 presents postoperative complications. Three patients required reoperation within 30 days following the procedure, two for anastomotic leak, and one for postoperative bleeding. Transverse loop colostomy was performed for anastomotic leak, and we monitored postoperative bleeding through laparotomy. Other complications included prolonged ileus (n = 3), urethral injury (n = 1), and coloanal anastomosis stenosis (n = 2). We used colonfiberoscope dilation for the two patients with coloanal anastomosis stenosis. The others morbidities recovered uneventfully after conservative treatment.

Table 2

Postoperative complications in 60 patients with low-lying rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision

ComplicationsNumber (%)Management
Post-operative bleeding    1 (1.7%)Laparotomy
Intra-abdominal infection/abscess    2 (3.3%)1: conservative treatment
1: CT-guided pig-tail drainage
Coloanal anastomosis stenosis    2 (3.3%)Colonoscopic dilation
Ileus    3 (5%)Conservative treatment
Anastomosis leakage    2 (3.3%)Loop transverse colostomy
Urethral injury    1 (1.7%)Conservative treatment
Pulmonary complication    2 (3.3%)Conservative treatment
Total    13 (21.7%)

Pathological and oncological outcomes

The pathological characteristics and oncological outcomes of all 60 patients are listed in Table 3. Preoperative clinical staging demonstrated that the majority of the patients had locally advanced rectal cancer: T3, T4, and N+ in 42 (70%), 8 (13.3%), and 36 (55.8%) patients, respectively. Therefore, preoperative CCRT was performed in 49 patients - the FOLFOX regimen in 36 (73.5%) patients and fluoropyrimidine-based regimen in 13 (26.5%) patients. The median numbers of harvested lymph nodes and apical lymph nodes were 8 (range, 0-36) and 1 (range, 0-6), respectively. However, positive apical lymph node metastasis was observed in only three (5%) patients. The median distances of the DRM and CRM were 1.9 and 1.1 cm, respectively. CRM and DRM were positive in three patients (5%) and one (1.7%) patient, respectively. R0 resection for primary rectal cancer was performed in 57 (95%) patients. Of the 49 patients who received preoperative CCRT, pathologic complete response (pCR) of the primary tumor was observed in 18 patients (18/49 = 36.7%). In total, 19 (38.8%), 17 (34.7%), 10 (20.4%), and 3 (6.1%) patients exhibited complete response [tumor regression grade (TRG) 0], moderate response (TRG 1), minimal response (TRG 2), and poor response (TRG 3), respectively.

Table 3

Clinicopathologic characteristics and oncological outcomes of 60 patients with low-lying rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision

Preoperative clinical stagingValue/number
Tumor depth
3 (5%)
7 (11.7%)
42 (70%)
8 (13.3%)
Lymph node metastasis
24 (40%)
24 (40%)
12 (20%)
AJCC stage (clinical)
7 (11.7%)
17 (28.3%)
36 (60%)
Postoperative pathological outcomes
  Well differentiation
  Moderate differentiation
  Poor differentiation
12 (20%)
45 (75%)
3 (5%)
Tumor size
  < 5 cm
  ≥ 5 cm
56 (93.3%)
4 (6.7%)
Tumor size (cm, mean ± SD) (range)2.11 ± 1.62 (0-8)
Tumor depth
20 (33.3%)
1 (1.7%)
9 (15%)
13 (21.7%)
16 (26.7%)
1 (1.7%)
Lymph node metastasis
46 (76.7%)
12 (20%)
2 (3.3%)
AJCC stage (pathologic)
18 (30%)
18 (30%)
10 (16.7%)
14 (23.3%)
Tumor regression grade (49 patients with preoperative CCRT)
19 (38.8%)
17 (34.7%)
10 (20.4%)
3 (6.1%)
Harvested lymph node (median) (range)8 (0-36)
Harvested apical node (median) (range)1 (0-6)
Distance of distal resection margin (cm, median) (range)1.9 (1.0-4.0)
Distance of circumferential resection margin (cm, median) (range)1.1 (0.1-3.5)
Distal resection margin
59 (98.3%)
1 (1.7%)
Circumferential resection margin
57 (95%)
3 (5%)
Resection degree of primary tumor
57 (95%)
3 (5%)
Oncological outcomes
Follow-up periods (months, median) (range)28 (12-53)
R0 resection
  Locoregional recurrence
  Distant metastasis
    Liver + Lung
    Peritoneal carcinomatosis
2 (3.5%)
5 (8.8%)
1 (1.75%)
2 (3.5%)
1 (1.75%)
1 (1.75%)
R1 resection
  Local recurrence
1 (33.3%)
1 (33.3%)
1 (33.3%)

During the postoperative follow-up period, 7 patients (11.7%) exhibited cancer recurrence. The median follow-up duration was 28 months (range, 12-53 months). Distant metastasis was observed in 5 patients (1 in the lung, 2 in the liver, 1 in both the lung and liver, and 1 with peritoneal seeding), whereas local recurrence was observed in 2 patients. The overall survival rate at 2 years was 96.7%, whereas the disease-free survival rate at 2 years was 88.3% [Figure 2].

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision in low-lying rectal cancer

Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier survival curves. A: Disease-free survival; B: overall survival


Minimal invasive surgery has become the gold standard for colorectal cancer; however, laparoscopy has some limitations. Therefore, a robotic approach to rectal cancer surgery seems appealing. Studies have shown that the robotic approach to colorectal surgery is safe and feasible[16]. Most crucially, favorable short-term clinical and oncological outcomes can be achieved by combining complete robotic-assisted TME with appropriate preoperative CCRT. At least 12 lymph nodes should be examined for each surgical specimen of colorectal cancer, as recommended in the American Joint Commission on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control guidelines. However, this recommendation was mainly based on studies of colon cancers. Chou et al.[17] reported that patients with rectal cancers and older patients who had distally located, early colon cancer were less likely to meet the recommended lymph node yield of 12. Besides, Persiani et al.[18] showed that a low lymph node count after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer does not signify inadequate resection or understaging but represents increased sensitivity to the treatment. Additionally, preoperative chemotherapy significantly reduces the number of lymph nodes that can be harvested, with the mean number of detected nodes ranging between 4 and 14 per specimen. In this study, the median number of harvested lymph nodes was 8 (range, 0-36), which is consistent with the literature[18].

The results of this study were consistent with those of a meta-analysis conducted by Scarpinata and Aly[19]. The selection criteria for robotic surgery in this meta-analysis were obesity, male sex, preoperative radiotherapy, and tumors in the lower two-thirds of the rectum. The pCR rate after CCRT observed in our study was 36.7%, which is slightly higher than in previous studies[20,21]. The introduction of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and a longer interval may be the major reasons for the higher pCR rate as in our previous study[22]. The sphincter preservation rate achieved in our study was 93.3% (56/60), which is comparable with that reported by Kim et al.[23] and Saklani et al.[24].

Two pathological assessments appear to be crucial in judging the standard of surgery: CRM involvement and the gross appearance of the surgically resected specimen. Moreover, CRM involvement has been reported as a prognostic factor for local recurrence and survival[25-28]. In this study, the rate of CRM involvement was 5%, with a median distance of 1.1 cm, which is comparable with that reported in other studies (0%-16.1%) [Table 4]. Moreover, the rate of DRM involvement was 1.7%, with a median distance of 1.9 cm, which is also comparable with that reported in previous studies [Table 4]. R0 resection for primary rectal cancer was performed in 57 (95%) patients, 2 of whom developed local recurrence and 5 of whom developed distant metastasis. We attempted to perform R0 resection in all patients, but R1 resection was performed in three patients. One such patient was a 59-year-old woman at clinical stage cT4bN2bM0 with uterus invasion. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was performed first, followed by robotic ISR 55 days later. The pathology report showed positive CRM, but the DRM was free. During follow up period, she died of intraabdominal infection 2 years and 10 months after operation. The second patient was a 61-year-old man at clinical stage cT4aN2bM0 with visceral peritoneum invasion. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was performed first, followed by robotic ISR 85 days later. The pathology report showed positive CRM, but DRM was free. During follow up period, he died of pneumonia 9 months after operation. The third patient was a 53-year-old woman at clinical stage cT4bN2bM0 with posterior vaginal wall invasion. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was performed first, followed by robotic ISR 203 days later. Pathology reports showed that both CRM and DRM were positive. During follow up period, she was still alive 2 years after operation.

Table 4

Comparison of clinical and perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision

StudyCountry (year)Sample sizeLower rectum (%)Preoperative CCRT (%)Conversion Rate (%)Estimated blood loss (mL)Overall complications (%)Anastomotic leakage (%)Rate of sphincter preservation (%)DRM (cm)Positive CRM (%)
Present studyTaiwan
60 (yp Stage 0-III)     100          81.7          095            21.7            3.3            93.31.9 (1-4)         5
Baek et al.[11]Korea
41 (yp Stage 0-III)     36.6*          80.5          7.3200 (20-2000)            22.0            7.3            85.43.6 (0.4-10)         2.4
Park et al.[12]Korea
52 (yp Stage 0-III)     60.4#          23.1          0NA            19.2            9.6            1002.8         1.9
Hellan et al.[14]USA
425 (yp Stage I-IV)     31.3          51.3          5.9119 ± 164            40.2            8.7            NA3.0 ± 2.0         0.9
Kim et al.[23]Korea
33 (yp Stage 0-III)     NA          100          6.1232.0 ± 180.0            45.6            NA            93.92.2 ± 1.5         16.1
Saklani et al.[24]Korea
74 (yp Stage 0-III)     NA          100          1.4180 ± 28.1
            16.2            5.4            97.31.7 ± 1.4 (0.1-6.0)         4
Pai et al.[29]USA
101 (yp Stage 0-IV)     28.7          74.3          4190 ± 128            28.7            6.3            79.23.5 ± 2.7 (0.1-16.3)         5
Kim et al.[30]Korea
60 (yp Stage 0-IV)     56.7*          36.7          074.2 ± 50            15            5            93.43.1 ± 1.7         11.7
Feroci et al.[31]Italy
53 (yp Stage (yp 0-III)     NA          49.1          3.860.8 (0-400)            26.4            5.7            1002.5 (0.5-10)         0
Cho et al.[32]Korea
278 (yp Stage 0-III)     24.8          32.7          0.4179.0 ± 236.5            25.9            10.4            1002.0 ± 1.4         5.0
Park et al.[33]Korea
133 (yp Stage I-III)     24.8          11.3          077.6 ± 153.2
            19.7            4.5            1002.75 ± 2.14 (1-14)         6.8
Ghezzi et al.[34]Brazil/Italy
65 (yp Stage 0-III)     100#          72.3          1.50 (0-175)            41.5            7.1            86.22.7 (1.6-4.4)         0
Hara et al.[35]Korea
200 (yp Stage 0-IV)     56.5          27.5          0190 (0-1500)            38.5            9.5            93.51.8 (0-22.0)         1.5
Baik et al.[36]Korea
370 (yp Stage 0-IV)     26.8          21.1          0.8245.7 ± 222.1
            24.6            7.7            99.22.6 ± 1.4         6.9
Ahmed et al.[37]UK
83     NA          21.7          010 (0-200)            49            2            88.02.7 (0.4-8.0)         3.6
Hellan et al.[38]USA
39 (yp Stage I-IV)     53.9#          84.6          2.6200 (25-6000)                        12.1            84.62.65 (0.4-7.5)         0
Luca et al.[39]Italy
28 (yp Stage I-IV)     NA          0          068 ± 138 (0-600)            NA            NA            75.02.5 ± 1.3 (0.6-5.5)         0
Yamaguchi et al.[40]Japan
203 (yp Stage 0-IV)     60.1#          0.5          015.4 ± 26.4            9            1.5            95.12.8 ± 1.9         NA
Ramji et al.[41]Canada
26     NA          58          12296 ± 155            42            8            852.96 ± 2.05         0
Abdel-Gawad et al.[42]Egypt
55     100          45.4          0NA            25.5            7.2            100NA         5.5

In our study, none of the surgical procedures were converted to open or laparoscopic surgery. Studies have shown that advanced local cancer stage, bulky tumors, and high body mass index may be responsible for conversions[14,23,31,38]. Although our study consisted of some difficult cases, including large tumors (4 patients with a tumor size > 5 cm), low-lying rectal cancer (distance of 3.5 cm from the anal verge), a greater proportion of men (36 patients), and more challenging operation requirements (37 patients with intersphincteric dissection), our morbidity results appeared promising. The anastomosis leakage rate in our study is 3.3%, which is slightly lower than that in other studies [Table 4].

This study had some limitations. First, this was a single-institution retrospective study consisting of only 60 patients. Second, the follow-up interval was short, with a median follow-up duration of 28 months; thus, only short-term (2-year) survival and oncological outcomes are reported. Nevertheless, the 2-year overall survival (96.7%) and disease-free survival (88.3%) in our study were consistent with those reported in previous studies [Table 5]. We also compared the short-term ontological outcomes of low-lying rectal cancer [Table 6]. Third, we did not evaluate the postoperative outcomes with regard to urinary and sexual functions.

Table 5

Comparison of short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision

StudyCountry (year)Local recurrence (%)Distant metastasis (%)Disease-free survivalOverall survival
Present study
(low-lying rectum)
Taiwan (2018)            3.5            8.888.3% (2-year)96.7% (2-year)
Pai et al.[29]
(all rectum)
USA (2015)            4            1779.2% (3-year)90.1% (3-year)
Kim et al.[30]
(all rectum)
Korea (2016)            1.9            26.472.8% (4-year)87.7% (4-year)
Feroci et al.[31] (mid and low-lying rectum)Italy (2016)            1.9            1779.2% (3-year)90.2% (3-year)
Cho et al.[32]
(all rectum)
Korea (2012)            1.8            12.281.8% (5-year)92.2% (5-year)
Park et al.[33]
(all rectum)
Korea (2015)            2.3            12.081.9% (5-year)92.8% (5-year)
Ghezzi et al.[34]
(low-lying rectum)
Brazil/Italy (2014)            3.2            18.573.2% (5-year)85.2% (5-year)
Hara et al.[35]
(all rectum)
Korea (2014)            4.5            1081.7% (5-year)92.0% (5-year)
Baik et al.[36]
(all rectum)
Korea (2013)            3.6            17.679.2% (3-year)93.1% (3-year)
Abdel-Gawad et al.[42] (low-lying rectum)Egypt (2014)            14.8            14.482.6% (3-year)88.7% (3-year)
Table 6

Comparison of short-term oncological outcomes of low-lying rectal cancer

StudyCountry (year)Local recurrence (%)Distant metastasis (%)Disease-free survivalOverall survivalSurgery method: open (%)Surgery method: laparoscopic (%)Surgery method: robotic (%)
Present studyTaiwan (2018)        3.5        8.888.3% (2-year)96.7% (2-year)            0%              0%            100%
Ghezzi et al.[34]Brazil/Italy (2014)        3.2        18.573.2% (5-year)85.2% (5-year)            37.3%              0%            62.7%
Abdel-Gawad et al.[42]Egypt (2014)        14.8        14.482.6% (3-year)88.7% (3-year)            NA              NA            0%

In conclusion, through comparison of short-term clinical outcomes, we have demonstrated that the robotic TME technique is safe and feasible for patients with low-lying rectal cancer. Moreover, combining this approach with appropriate preoperative CCRT can deliver favorable short-term oncological outcomes. However, further investigation of long-term oncological outcomes is required using studies with longer follow-up durations.


Authors’ contributions

Conception and design of the study, Data analysis and interpretation: Chen PJ, Huang CW, Tsai HL, Yeh YS, Wang JY

Data acquisition, provided administrative, technical, and material support: Su WC, Chang TK, Huang MY, Huang CM, Wang JY

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Financial support and sponsorship

This work was supported by grants through funding from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST107-2321-B-037-003, MOST107-2314-B-037-116, MOST107-2314-B-037-022-MY2, MOST107-2314-B-037-023-MY2) and the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW106-TDU-B-212-113006, MOHW107-TDU-B-212-123006, MOHW107-TDU-B-212-114026B funded by Health and welfare surcharge of tobacco products), and the Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital (KMUH106-6R32, KMUH106-6M28, KMUH106-6M29, KMUH106-6M30, KMUH106-6M31, KMUHS10701, KMUHS10712), and the Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital (KMTTH104-023). In addition, this study was supported by the Grant of Biosignature in Colorectal Cancers, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, R.O.C.; and Grant by the Kaohsiung Medical University (KMU-S105011, KMU-PT10616).

Conflicts of interest

All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by hospital ethics committee of Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital. Consent to participate was obtained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.


© The Author(s) 2018.


1. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery--the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 1982;69:613-6.

2. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ. Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1993;341:457-60.

3. Sauer R, Liersch T, Merkel S, Fietkau R, Hohenberger W, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 randomized phase III trial after a median follow-up of 11 years. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:1926-33.

4. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, Rödel C, Wittekind C, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1731-40.

5. McCarthy K, Pearson K, Fulton R, Hewitt J. Pre-operative chemoradiation for non-metastatic locally advanced rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD008368.

6. Bosset JF, Calais G, Mineur L, Maingon P, Radosevic-Jelic L, et al. Enhanced tumorocidal effect of chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: preliminary results--EORTC 22921. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5620-7.

7. Gérard JP, Conroy T, Bonnetain F, Bouché O, Chapet O, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy with or without concurrent fluorouracil and leucovorin in T3-4 rectal cancers: results of FFCD 9203. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4620-5.

8. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Fürst A, Lacy AM, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:210-8.

9. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;365:1718-26.

10. Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH. Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:1689-94.

11. Baek JH, Pastor C, Pigazzi A. Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 2011;25:521-5.

12. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2011;25:240-8.

13. Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, et al. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:2485-93.

14. Hellan M, Ouellette J, Lagares-Garcia JA, Rauh SM, Kennedy HL, et al. Robotic rectal cancer resection: a retrospective multicenter analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:2151-8.

15. Huang CW, Tsai HL, Yeh YS, Su WC, Huang MY, et al. Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision with the single-docking technique for patients with rectal cancer. BMC Surgery 2017;17:126.

16. Huang CW, Yeh YS, Su WC, Tsai HL, Choy TK, et al. Robotic surgery with high dissection and low ligation technique for consecutive patients with rectal cancer following preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Int J Colorectal Dis 2016;31:1169-77.

17. Chou JF, Row D, Gonen M, Liu YH, Schrag D, et al. Clinical and pathologic factors that predict lymph node yield from surgical specimens in colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Cancer 2010;116:2560-70.

18. Persiani R, Biondi A, Gambacorta MA, Bertucci Zoccali M, Vecchio FM, et al. Prognostic implications of the lymph node count after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2014;101:133-42.

19. Scarpinata R, Aly EH. Does robotic rectal cancer surgery offer improved early postoperative outcomes? Dis Colon Rectum 2013;56:253-62.

20. Madbouly KM, Hussein AM. Changing operative strategy from abdominoperineal resection to sphincter preservation in T3 low rectal cancer after downstaging by neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a preliminary report. World J Surg 2015;39:1248-56.

21. Maas M, Nelemans PJ, Valentini V, Das P, Rödel C, et al. Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:835-44.

22. Huang CM, Huang MY, Tsai HL, Huang CW, Ma CJ, et al. An observational study of extending FOLFOX chemotherapy, lengthening the interval between radiotherapy and surgery, and enhancing pathological complete response rates in rectal cancer patients following preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Ther Adv Gastroenterol 2016;9:702-12.

23. Kim YS, Kim MJ, Park SC, Sohn DK, Kim DY, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: case-matched study of short-term outcomes. Cancer Res Treat 2016;48:225-31.

24. Saklani AP, Lim DR, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of oncologic outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013;28:1689-98.

25. Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG, Scott N, Finan PJ, et al. Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet 1994;344:707-11.

26. Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, et al. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2009;373:821-8.

27. Quirke P. Training and quality assurance for rectal cancer: 20 years of data is enough. Lancet Oncol 2003;4:695-702.

28. Kwak JM, Kim SH. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: an update in 2015. Cancer Res Treat 2016;48:427-35.

29. Pai A, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Melich G, Sulo S, et al. Oncologic and clinicopathologic outcomes of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2015;58:659-67.

30. Kim CN, Bae SU, Lee SG, Yang SH, Hyun IG, et al. Clinical and oncologic outcomes of totally robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial results in a center for minimally invasive surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 2016;31:843-52.

31. Feroci F, Vannucchi A, Bianchi PP, Cantafio S, Garzi A, et al. Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs robotic surgery. World J Gastroenterol 2016;22:3602-10.

32. Cho MS, Baek SJ, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH, et al. Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e522.

33. Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ, Hur H, Min BS, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 2015;261:129-37.

34. Ghezzi TL, Luca F, Valvo M, Corleta OC, Zuccaro M, et al. Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparative study of short and long-term outcomes. Eur J Surg Onco 2014;40:1072-9.

35. Hara M, Sng K, Yoo BE, Shin JW, Lee DW, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma: short-term and midterm outcomes from 200 consecutive cases at a single institution. Dis Colon Rectum 2014;57:570-7.

36. Baik SH, Kim NK, Lim DR, Hur H, Min BS, et al. Oncologic outcomes and perioperative clinicopathologic results after robot-assisted tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:2625-32.

37. Ahmed J, Nasir M, Flashman K, Khan J, Parvaiz A. Totally robotic rectal resection: an experience of the first 100 consecutive cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2016;31:869-76.

38. Hellan M, Anderson C, Ellenhorn JD, Paz B, Pigazzi A. Short-term outcomes after robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:3168-73.

39. Luca F, Cenciarelli S, Valvo M, Pozzi S, Faso FL, et al. Full robotic left colon and rectal cancer resection: technique and early outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:1274-8.

40. Yamaguchi T, Kinugasa Y, Shiomi A, Tomioka H, Kagawa H, et al. Robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center. Surg Today 2016;46:957-62.

41. Ramji KM, Cleghorn MC, Josse JM, MacNeill A, O'Brien C, et al. Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between robotic, laparoscopic, and open rectal cancer surgery: early experience at a tertiary care center. Surg Endosc 2016;30:1337-43.

42. Abdel-Gawad W, Zaghloul A, Fakhr I, Sakr M, Shabana A, et al. Evaluation of the frequency and pattern of local recurrence following intersphincteric resection for ultra-low rectal cancer. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 2014;26:87-92.

Cite This Article

Export citation file: BibTeX | EndNote | RIS

OAE Style

Chen PJ, Huang CW, Tsai HL, Yeh YS, Su WC, Chang TK, Huang MY, Huang CM, Wang JY. Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision in low-lying rectal cancer. Mini-invasive Surg 2018;2:43.

AMA Style

Chen PJ, Huang CW, Tsai HL, Yeh YS, Su WC, Chang TK, Huang MY, Huang CM, Wang JY. Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision in low-lying rectal cancer. Mini-invasive Surgery. 2018; 2: 43.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Po-Jung Chen, Ching-Wen Huang, Hsiang-Lin Tsai, Yung-Sung Yeh, Wei-Chih Su, Tsung-Kun Chang, Ming-Yii Huang, Chun-Ming Huang, Jaw-Yuan Wang. 2018. "Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision in low-lying rectal cancer" Mini-invasive Surgery. 2: 43.

ACS Style

Chen, P.J.; Huang C.W.; Tsai H.L.; Yeh Y.S.; Su W.C.; Chang T.K.; Huang M.Y.; Huang C.M.; Wang J.Y. Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision in low-lying rectal cancer. Mini-invasive. Surg. 2018, 2, 43.

About This Article

Special Issue

This article belongs to the Special Issue A Bespoke Approach to Rectal Cancer Resection and Management
© The Author(s) 2018. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Data & Comments




Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at

Download PDF
Cite This Article 4 clicks
Like This Article 0 likes
Share This Article
Scan the QR code for reading!
See Updates
Mini-invasive Surgery
ISSN 2574-1225 (Online)
Follow Us


All published articles are preserved here permanently:


All published articles are preserved here permanently: