Robot-assisted radical surgery for colorectal cancer: technical advances, lymphadenectomy, natural orifice specimen extraction, and ongoing controversies.
- 1Gastrointestinal Oncology Center, Arion Cancer Center (Beijing), Beijing, China.
Abstract
Robot-assisted surgery expands the technical options for colorectal cancer resection, but its clinical value depends on the operative setting and the outcome assessed. This narrative review examines lymphadenectomy and natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES), distinguishing colon from rectal cancer and technical feasibility from demonstrated clinical benefit. Literature published through 1 July 2026 was considered. Randomized evidence in rectal cancer is heterogeneous: ROLARR and COLRAR did not demonstrate superiority for their respective primary outcomes, whereas REAL reported better selected perioperative outcomes and lower 3-year locoregional recurrence after robotic surgery. These findings do not establish an overall survival advantage or a benefit mediated specifically by more extensive lymphadenectomy. Evidence for robotic colectomy remains less definitive. Lymph node yield, dissection extent, vascular ligation and specimen quality should be evaluated separately, with attention to geographical differences in practice. Robotic NOSES may reduce pain and wound morbidity in selected patients; a recent randomized trial supports short-term benefits, while long-term oncological equivalence remains unproven. Selection bias, limited external validity, cost and variable surgeon experience constrain broader conclusions. Adoption should therefore be guided by procedure-specific evidence, appropriate oncological resection and patient priorities rather than technical capability alone.
Related
- Comparative outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional minilaparotomy-assisted specimen extraction in colorectal cancer: A single-center retrospective study.
- Anchored Drill-Assisted Localization for Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Surgery in the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy: A Technical Report and Preliminary Efficacy Evaluation
- Stoma-Site Single-Port Robotic Restorative Colorectal Surgery Using the da Vinci SP System: Technical Considerations and Early Outcomes.
- A novel and simple Inflation-deflation method with inflated targeted segments for confirming the intersegmental border under video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a technical note.
- Navigated robotic-arm-assisted hybrid multi-portal endoscopic fenestration of a thoracic intradural arachnoid cyst: a technical case report
BibTeX
@article{liu2026robotassisted,
title = {{Robot-assisted radical surgery for colorectal cancer: technical advances, lymphadenectomy, natural orifice specimen extraction, and ongoing controversies.}},
author = {Wanling Liu and Zhiqiang Ma and Jiangping Xie and Xin Wu and Qais Ahmad Baheen and Shaolu Zhang and Zheng Liu},
journal = {Frontiers in surgery},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fsurg.2026.1951518},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42924242},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Robot-assisted radical surgery for colorectal cancer: technical advances, lymphadenectomy, natural orifice specimen extraction, and ongoing controversies.
AU - Wanling Liu
AU - Zhiqiang Ma
AU - Jiangping Xie
AU - Xin Wu
AU - Qais Ahmad Baheen
AU - Shaolu Zhang
AU - Zheng Liu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/08
JO - Frontiers in surgery
DO - 10.3389/fsurg.2026.1951518
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42924242
AB - Robot-assisted surgery expands the technical options for colorectal cancer resection, but its clinical value depends on the operative setting and the outcome assessed. This narrative review examines lymphadenectomy and natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES), distinguishing colon from rectal cancer and technical feasibility from demonstrated clinical benefit. Literature published through 1 July 2026 was considered. Randomized evidence in rectal cancer is heterogeneous: ROLARR and COLRAR did not demonstrate superiority for their respective primary outcomes, whereas REAL reported better selected perioperative outcomes and lower 3-year locoregional recurrence after robotic surgery. These findings do not establish an overall survival advantage or a benefit mediated specifically by more extensive lymphadenectomy. Evidence for robotic colectomy remains less definitive. Lymph node yield, dissection extent, vascular ligation and specimen quality should be evaluated separately, with attention to geographical differences in practice. Robotic NOSES may reduce pain and wound morbidity in selected patients; a recent randomized trial supports short-term benefits, while long-term oncological equivalence remains unproven. Selection bias, limited external validity, cost and variable surgeon experience constrain broader conclusions. Adoption should therefore be guided by procedure-specific evidence, appropriate oncological resection and patient priorities rather than technical capability alone.
SN - 2296-875X
ER -