Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer in a Center with a Beginning Robotic Colorectal Surgery Program.

Background and Objective: Robotic surgery for rectal malignancies in the Philippines is emerging. Evidence has shown promising results for robot-assisted (R) rectal surgery when compared to the laparoscopic (L) and open (O) approach. This study discussed the clinicopathologic outcomes of the first robotic rectal resections versus laparoscopic and open rectal resections at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort of 45 consecutive surgical resections for rectal malignancy done at the PGH from March 2019 to October 2019 that compared the outcomes of the first 15 robotic procedures done at the institution versus laparoscopic (n=15) and open (n=15) operations performed during the same time period. One-way ANOVA was done to determine significant differences among variables, while Bonferonni multiple comparison test was done to analyze differences among means. Results: The 45 patients in the study had a mean age of 56.04 ± 13.45 years. The patients were mostly male (60%). Most of the tumors were located in the low rectum (27/45; 60%). Most of the patients had locally-advanced (at least Stage IIIB) disease (27/45; 60%), and warranted neoadjuvant treatment (41/45; 91.11%). Most patients underwent a sphincter-saving procedure (34/45; 75.56%). All three groups had comparable baseline characteristics. The R-group had the longest operative time (438.07 ± 124.57; p value <0.0001). Blood loss was significantly highest in the R-group (399 ± 133.07 cc; p value - 0.0020) as well, while no statistical difference was observed between the O- and L-groups (p value - 0.75). No conversion to open was noted in the R- and L-groups. Most of the patients had well-differentiated adenocarcinoma (22/45; 48.49%). All patients in the L- and O-groups had an R0 resection There were two R1 resections in the R-group. All patients who underwent an open surgery had a negative circumferential resection margin (CRM); L-group 93.99%, R-group 69.23%. All patients had adequate proximal and distal resection margins. Those who underwent an open surgery had the shortest post-operative length of stay (LOS) (p value - 0.0002). Post-operative ileus (7/45; 15.56%) was the most commonly encountered morbidity, and was seen mostly in the R-group (3/15; 20%). One patient in the R-group underwent a transanal repair of an anastomotic dehiscence and was discharged three days after re-operation. There was no reported mortality. Conclusion: Our institution with a beginning robotic colorectal surgery program showed promise as its initial outcomes for rectal cancer were compared to the more often-performed open and laparoscopic procedures. The authors expect more favorable clinicopathological outcomes as our staff overcome the prescribed learning curve for robotic surgery.