Abstract:Background Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is gaining popularity, but evidence on long-term oncological outcomes is scarce. We aimed to compare surgical quality and long-term oncological outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with middle and low rectal cancer. Here we report the short-term outcomes of this trial. Methods This multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial was done at 11 hospitals in eight provinces of China. Eligible patients were aged 18–80 years with middle (>5 to 10 cm from the anal verge) or low (≤5 cm from the anal verge) rectal adenocarcinoma, cT1–T3 N0–N1 or ycT1–T3 Nx, and no evidence of distant metastasis. Central randomisation was done by use of an online system and was stratified according to participating centre, sex, BMI, tumour location, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive robotic or conventional laparoscopic surgery. All surgical procedures complied with the principles of total mesorectal excision or partial mesorectal excision (for tumours located higher in the rectum). Lymph nodes at the origin of the inferior mesenteric artery were dissected. In the robotic group, the excision procedures and dissection of lymph nodes were done by use of robotic techniques. Neither investigators nor patients were masked to the treatment allocation but the assessment of pathological outcomes was masked to the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was 3-year locoregional recurrence rate, but the data for this endpoint are not yet mature. Secondary short-term endpoints are reported in this article, including two key secondary endpoints: circumferential resection margin positivity and 30-day postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo classification grade II or higher). The outcomes were analysed according in a modified intention-to-treat population (according to the original assigned groups and excluding patients who did not undergo surgery or no longer met inclusion criteria after randomisation). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02817126. Study recruitment has completed, and the follow-up is ongoing. Findings Between July 17, 2016, and Dec 21, 2020, 1742 patients were assessed for eligibility. 502 patients were excluded, and 1240 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either robotic surgery (620 patients) or laparoscopic surgery (620 patients). 69 patients were excluded (34 in the robotic surgery group and 35 in the laparoscopic surgery group). 1171 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (586 in the robotic group and 585 in the laparoscopic group). Six patients in the robotic surgery group received laparoscopic surgery and seven patients in the laparoscopic surgery group received robotic surgery. 22 (4·0%) of 547 patients in the robotic group had a positive circumferential resection margin as did 39 (7·2%) of 543 patients in the laparoscopic group (difference –3·2 percentage points [95% CI –6·0 to –0·4]; p=0·023). 95 (16·2%) of patients in the robotic group had at least one postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher) within 30 days after surgery, as did 135 (23·1%) of 585 patients in the laparoscopic group (difference –6·9 percentage points [–11·4 to –2·3]; p=0·003). More patients in the robotic group had a macroscopic complete resection than in the laparoscopic group (559 [95·4%] of 586 patients vs 537 [91·8%] of 585 patients, difference 3·6 percentage points [0·8 to 6·5]). Patients in the robotic group had better postoperative gastrointestinal recovery, shorter postoperative hospital stay (median 7·0 days [IQR 7·0 to 11·0] vs 8·0 days [7·0 to 12·0], difference –1·0 [95% CI –1·0 to 0·0]; p=0·0001), fewer abdominoperineal resections (99 [16·9%] of 586 patients vs 133 [22·7%] of 585 patients, difference –5·8 percentage points [–10·4 to –1·3]), fewer conversions to open surgery (10 [1·7%] of 586 patients vs 23 [3·9%] of 585 patients, difference –2·2 percentage points [–4·3 to –0·4]; p=0·021), less estimated blood loss (median 40·0 mL [IQR 30·0 to 100·0] vs 50·0 mL [40·0 to 100·0], difference –10·0 [–20·0 to –10·0]; p<0·0001), and fewer intraoperative complications (32 [5·5%] of 586 patients vs 51 [8·7%] of 585 patients; difference –3·3 percentage points [–6·3 to –0·3]; p=0·030) than patients in the laparoscopic group. Interpretation Secondary short-term outcomes suggest that for middle and low rectal cancer, robotic surgery resulted in better oncological quality of resection than conventional laparoscopic surgery, with less surgical trauma, and better postoperative recovery. Funding Shenkang Hospital Development Center, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (Shanghai, China), and Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University (Shanghai, China).

Through a generation darkly: small RNAs in the gametophyte.

Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): Short-term outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Middle and Low Rectal Cancer (REAL): Primary Outcome of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Extra-articular wide tumor resection and limb reconstruction in malignant bone tumors invading the knee joint.

Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010-2015)

Robot-assisted Vs Laparoscopic Vs Open Abdominoperineal Resections for Low Rectal Cancer: Short-term Outcomes of a Single-Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Laparoscopic-assisted Vs Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: 5-Year Outcomes of the LASRE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study on surgical safety and functional outcomes

Some contemporary concepts of scleral disease.

Comparing the long‐term follow‐up anal function between robot‐assisted and laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

Comparison Between Robotic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery And Traditional Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection For Middle And Low Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

excellence in medical research – can we make it in india?

Laparoscopy-assisted Versus Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer (LASRE): 3-Year Survival Outcomes of a Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled, Non-Inferiority Trial.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer:a case-control study

Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis

Short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study

Efficacy of robot-assisted vs. laparoscopy surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis