Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection. The application of the robotic approach to ISR (RISR) has been described by few specialized surgical teams with several differences regarding approach and technique. This review aims to discuss the technical aspects of RISR by evaluating point by point each surgical controversy. Moreover, a systematic review was performed to report the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RISR. Postoperative morbidities after RISR are acceptable. RISR allows adequate surgical margins and adequate oncological outcomes. RISR may result in severe bowel and genitourinary dysfunction affecting the quality of life in a portion of patients.

Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

This study aims to discuss the principles and pillars of robotic colorectal surgery training and share the training pathway at Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust. A narrative review is presented to discuss all the relevant and critical steps in robotic surgical training. Robotic training requires a stepwise approach, including theoretical knowledge, case observation, simulation, dry lab, wet lab, tutored programs, proctoring (in person or telementoring), procedure-specific training, and follow-up. Portsmouth Colorectal has an established robotic training model with a safe stepwise approach that has been demonstrated through perioperative and oncological results. Robotic surgery training should enable a trainee to use the robotic platform safely and effectively, minimize errors, and enhance performance with improved outcomes. Portsmouth Colorectal has provided such a stepwise training program since 2015 and continues to promote and augment safe robotic training in its field. Safe and efficient training programs are essential to upholding the optimal standard of care.

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) with coloanal anastomosis is an oncologically safe anus-preserving technique for very low-lying rectal cancers. Most studies focused on oncological and functional outcomes of ISR with very few evaluating long-term postoperative anorectal complications. Full-thickness prolapse of the neorectum is a relatively rare complication. This report presents the case of a 70-year-old woman presenting with full-thickness prolapse of the side limb of the side-to-end coloanal anastomosis occurring 2 weeks after the stoma closure and 2 months after a robotic partial ISR performed with the Da Vinci single-port platform. The anastomosis was revised through resection of the side limb and conversion of the side-to-end anastomosis into an end-to-end handsewn anastomosis with interrupted stitches. This study describes the first case of full-thickness prolapse of the side limb of the side-to-end handsewn coloanal anastomosis following ISR. Moreover, a revision of all reported cases of post-ISR full-thickness and mucosal prolapse was performed.

Purpose: Treatment outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer have improved significantly in recent decades. This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery in patients with T4 rectal cancer and the different outcomes between T4a and T4b patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 clinically T4 rectal cancer patients who underwent nCRT were included in the analysis. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, down-staging rates, pathological response, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Both T4a and T4b patients experienced down-staging following nCRT (36.6% and 6.2% respectively; p = 0.021). T4a patients exhibited a higher rate of pathological complete response (pCR) than T4b patients (13.3% in T4a vs. 0% in T4b; p = 0.122). After a median follow-up of 36 months, the OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of T4a patients were significantly higher compared to T4b patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–6.05, p = 0.038 for OS; HR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.09–4.92, p = 0.025 for RFS). Conclusion This study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of nCRT in T4 rectal cancer patients. Although down-staging was observed in both T4a and T4b subgroups, achieving a pCR remains a challenge, particularly in T4b patients. Further research is needed to optimize treatment strategies and enhance pCR rates in T4 rectal cancer patients to improve oncologic outcomes.

Purpose: Treatment outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer have improved significantly in recent decades. This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery in patients with T4 rectal cancer and the different outcomes between T4a and T4b patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 clinically T4 rectal cancer patients who underwent nCRT were included in the analysis. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, down-staging rates, pathological response, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Both T4a and T4b patients experienced down-staging following nCRT (36.6% and 6.2% respectively; p = 0.021). T4a patients exhibited a higher rate of pathological complete response (pCR) than T4b patients (13.3% in T4a vs. 0% in T4b; p = 0.122). After a median follow-up of 36 months, the OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of T4a patients were significantly higher compared to T4b patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–6.05, p = 0.038 for OS; HR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.09–4.92, p = 0.025 for RFS). Conclusion This study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of nCRT in T4 rectal cancer patients. Although down-staging was observed in both T4a and T4b subgroups, achieving a pCR remains a challenge, particularly in T4b patients. Further research is needed to optimize treatment strategies and enhance pCR rates in T4 rectal cancer patients to improve oncologic outcomes.