Objective:To evaluate the relationship between pelvimetric parameters and surgical difficulty in robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) performed by experienced colorectal surgeons, and to build a nomogram model.Methods:This was a retrospective observational study. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) tumor within 10 cm of the anal verge; (2) cancer confirmed by pathological examination of the postoperative specimen; (3) preoperative complete magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data available; (4) depth of tumor invasion T1-3; (5) circumferential resection margin assessed as negative by MRI; and (6) R0 resection achieved. The exclusion criteria comprised (1) history of pelvic fractures; (2) history of pelvic surgery; and (3) emergency required because of tumor-related intestinal obstruction and/or perforation. Application of above criteria yielded 82 patients who had undergone robot-assisted total mesorectal excision of mid and low rectal cancer in the Department of Colorectal Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2021 to December 2022 (modeling group). Additionally, data of 35 patients with mid and low rectal cancer who had undergone robotic-assisted TME at the same center in 2023 January–August were collected for validation of the model (validation group). The following 13 pelvic parameters were studied: pelvic inlet diameter, pelvic outlet diameter, pubic tubercle height, sacral height, sacral depth, interspinous distance, inter-tuberosity distance, lateral mesorectal span, anterior-posterior mesorectal span, anterior mesorectal thickness, posterior mesorectal thickness, rectal area, and mesorectal area. Operating time was used as an indicator of the degree of surgical difficulty, this being defined as the time from the start of skin incision to the end of abdominal closure. Variables related to the duration of surgery were subjected to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with the difficulty of TME, after which a nomogram for predicting the difficulty of the procedure was established. We constructed receiver operating characteristic and calibration curves to validate the predictive power of nomogram. Furthermore, data from the validation group were used for external validation of the model.Results:The model group comprised 82 patients, including 54 men and 28 women of median age 61.0 years. The median body mass index (BMI) was 23.7 kg/m 2, median distance between the tumor and anal verge 6.1 cm, and median tumor diameter 4.5 cm. Fourteen of these patients had received preoperative adjuvant therapy and 12 had a history of abdominal surgery. There were 35 patients (24 men and 11 women) of median age 64.0 years in the validation group. Their median BMI was 23.7 kg/m 2 and median distance between the tumor and anal verge 6.3 cm. Multivariable analyses of the model group showed that BMI (OR=1.227, 95%CI: 1.240–1.469, P=0.026), distance between the tumor and anal verge (OR=0.733, 95%CI: 0.562–0.955, P=0.022), and interspinous distance (OR=0.468, 95%CI: 0.270–0.812, P=0.007) were independent predictors of surgical difficulty. We then built and validated a predictive nomogram based on the above three variables (AUC=0.804, 95%CI: 0.707–0.900). Calibration curves showed that the S:P in this model was 0.987 and the C-index 0.804. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model in the validation dataset was 0.767 (95%CI: 0.606–0.928). Conclusion:MRI-based measurements of pelvic parameters are associated with difficulty of performing robot-assisted TME for mid and low rectal cancer. Our nomogram model constructed based on measurements of pelvic parameters has a good predictive ability.

Objective:To evaluate the relationship between pelvimetric parameters and surgical difficulty in robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) performed by experienced colorectal surgeons, and to build a nomogram model.Methods:This was a retrospective observational study. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) tumor within 10 cm of the anal verge; (2) cancer confirmed by pathological examination of the postoperative specimen; (3) preoperative complete magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data available; (4) depth of tumor invasion T1-3; (5) circumferential resection margin assessed as negative by MRI; and (6) R0 resection achieved. The exclusion criteria comprised (1) history of pelvic fractures; (2) history of pelvic surgery; and (3) emergency required because of tumor-related intestinal obstruction and/or perforation. Application of above criteria yielded 82 patients who had undergone robot-assisted total mesorectal excision of mid and low rectal cancer in the Department of Colorectal Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2021 to December 2022 (modeling group). Additionally, data of 35 patients with mid and low rectal cancer who had undergone robotic-assisted TME at the same center in 2023 January–August were collected for validation of the model (validation group). The following 13 pelvic parameters were studied: pelvic inlet diameter, pelvic outlet diameter, pubic tubercle height, sacral height, sacral depth, interspinous distance, inter-tuberosity distance, lateral mesorectal span, anterior-posterior mesorectal span, anterior mesorectal thickness, posterior mesorectal thickness, rectal area, and mesorectal area. Operating time was used as an indicator of the degree of surgical difficulty, this being defined as the time from the start of skin incision to the end of abdominal closure. Variables related to the duration of surgery were subjected to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with the difficulty of TME, after which a nomogram for predicting the difficulty of the procedure was established. We constructed receiver operating characteristic and calibration curves to validate the predictive power of nomogram. Furthermore, data from the validation group were used for external validation of the model.Results:The model group comprised 82 patients, including 54 men and 28 women of median age 61.0 years. The median body mass index (BMI) was 23.7 kg/m 2, median distance between the tumor and anal verge 6.1 cm, and median tumor diameter 4.5 cm. Fourteen of these patients had received preoperative adjuvant therapy and 12 had a history of abdominal surgery. There were 35 patients (24 men and 11 women) of median age 64.0 years in the validation group. Their median BMI was 23.7 kg/m 2 and median distance between the tumor and anal verge 6.3 cm. Multivariable analyses of the model group showed that BMI (OR=1.227, 95%CI: 1.240–1.469, P=0.026), distance between the tumor and anal verge (OR=0.733, 95%CI: 0.562–0.955, P=0.022), and interspinous distance (OR=0.468, 95%CI: 0.270–0.812, P=0.007) were independent predictors of surgical difficulty. We then built and validated a predictive nomogram based on the above three variables (AUC=0.804, 95%CI: 0.707–0.900). Calibration curves showed that the S:P in this model was 0.987 and the C-index 0.804. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model in the validation dataset was 0.767 (95%CI: 0.606–0.928). Conclusion:MRI-based measurements of pelvic parameters are associated with difficulty of performing robot-assisted TME for mid and low rectal cancer. Our nomogram model constructed based on measurements of pelvic parameters has a good predictive ability.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to analyze the chronological changes in postoperative complications in surgical ulcerative colitis patients over the past decade in China and to investigate the potential parameters that contributed to the changes. Methods: Ulcerative colitis patients who underwent surgery during 2008–2017 were retrospectively enrolled from 13 hospitals in China. Postoperative complications were compared among different operation years. Risk factors for complications were identified by logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 446 surgical ulcerative colitis patients were analyzed. Fewer short-term complications (24.8% vs. 41.0%, P=0.001) and more laparoscopic surgeries (66.4% vs. 25.0%, P<0.001) were found among patients who received surgery during 2014–2017 than 2008–2013. Logistic regression suggested that independent protective factors against short-term complications were a higher preoperative body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 0.870; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.785–0.964; P=0.008), laparoscopic surgery (OR, 0.391; 95% CI, 0.217–0.705; P=0.002) and elective surgery (OR, 0.213; 95% CI, 0.067–0.675; P=0.009). The chronological decrease in short-term complications was associated with an increase in laparoscopic surgery. Conclusions Our data revealed a downward trend of short-term postoperative complications among surgical ulcerative colitis patients in China during the past decade, which may be due to the promotion of minimally invasive techniques among Chinese surgeons.

Cooperative laparoscopic or robotic-endoscopic surgery has emerged as a promising approach for the treatment of early-stage colorectal cancers that are difficult to treat with endoscopic techniques alone. Cooperative surgery allows organ and function preservation by complementing the advantages of each modality, providing minimally invasive, precise and personalized treatment options. Laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery includes laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic resection, combined laparoscopic-endoscopic full-thickness resection, endoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection, endoscopic-assisted laparoscopic segmental resection, and laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery with sentinel lymph node dissection. Nearly three decades of clinical research and practice have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery in the treatment of colorectal tumors. With the progress of the minimally invasive concept, the development of minimally invasive technology and the innovation of minimally invasive equipment, laparoscopy and endoscopy cooperative surgery is expected to have a proper place in the treatment of colorectal tumors.

Objective:To investigate the feasibility and safety of a robotic surgical system (or laparoscopy) in combination with colonoscopy (combined) for the treatment of stage T1N0M0 colorectal cancer.Methods:This was a descriptive case series. Indications for combined dual-scope surgery in this study were as follows: (1) preoperative colonoscopic examination of lesions in the middle and upper rectum and colon with pathologically confirmed high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, intramucosal adenocarcinoma, or adenocarcinoma; (2) no distant or local lymph node metastases; and (3) endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging evidence of tumor invasion of the mucosal or submucosal, but not the muscular, layer (i.e., T1). The clinical data of 13 patients with stage T1 colorectal cancer who had undergone dual-scope combined resection using a robotic surgery system or laparoscope-assisted combined colonoscopy surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from April to October 2022 were retrospectively collected, including 6 males and 7 females, with a median age of 59 (48~88) years old. The tumors were located in the upper and middle rectum in six patients, in the sigmoid colon in three, and in the ascending colon in four. The median maximum diameter of the tumors was 3.0 (1.8–5.0) cm. The surgery was performed by a robotic surgery system (or laparoscopy) with peritumoral D1 lymph node dissection at the first station in the tumor area. The tumors were resected under direct vision and the defects in the intestinal wall were using a robotic surgery system (or laparoscopy). A robotic surgery system was combined with colonoscopy in eight cases and laparoscopy combined with colonoscopy in the remaining five. Studied variables includes surgical and pathological features, postoperative factors, and outcomes.Results:Surgery was successful in all 13 patients with no need for conversion to open surgery or intraoperative blood transfusion. The median operating time was 85 (60–120) minutes, median intraoperative bleeding 3 (2–5) mL, median number of lymph nodes harvested 3 (1–5), and the median circumferential resection margin 0.8 (0.5–1.0) cm. Postoperative pathological examination showed lymph node metastasis in one patient, who therefore underwent additional radical surgery. The median postoperative time to ambulation was 1 (1–2) days. The urinary catheters of all patients were removed 1 day after surgery and the median length of stay was 4 (3–5) days. No abdominal infection, anastomotic leakage or bleeding occurred in any of the study patients. The median follow-up time was 10 (6–12) months, during which no tumor recurrence or metastasis was found, and the quality of life was satisfactory.Conclusions:The combination of two minimally invasive platforms, a robotic surgery system (or laparoscopy) and colonoscopy, is safe and feasible for resection of stage T1 colorectal cancer and has a good short-term prognosis.

Cooperative laparoscopic or robotic-endoscopic surgery has emerged as a promising approach for the treatment of early-stage colorectal cancers that are difficult to treat with endoscopic techniques alone. Cooperative surgery allows organ and function preservation by complementing the advantages of each modality, providing minimally invasive, precise and personalized treatment options. Laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery includes laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic resection, combined laparoscopic-endoscopic full-thickness resection, endoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection, endoscopic-assisted laparoscopic segmental resection, and laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery with sentinel lymph node dissection. Nearly three decades of clinical research and practice have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery in the treatment of colorectal tumors. With the progress of the minimally invasive concept, the development of minimally invasive technology and the innovation of minimally invasive equipment, laparoscopy and endoscopy cooperative surgery is expected to have a proper place in the treatment of colorectal tumors.

Objective:To investigate the feasibility and safety of a robotic surgical system (or laparoscopy) in combination with colonoscopy (combined) for the treatment of stage T1N0M0 colorectal cancer.Methods:This was a descriptive case series. Indications for combined dual-scope surgery in this study were as follows: (1) preoperative colonoscopic examination of lesions in the middle and upper rectum and colon with pathologically confirmed high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, intramucosal adenocarcinoma, or adenocarcinoma; (2) no distant or local lymph node metastases; and (3) endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging evidence of tumor invasion of the mucosal or submucosal, but not the muscular, layer (i.e., T1). The clinical data of 13 patients with stage T1 colorectal cancer who had undergone dual-scope combined resection using a robotic surgery system or laparoscope-assisted combined colonoscopy surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from April to October 2022 were retrospectively collected, including 6 males and 7 females, with a median age of 59 (48~88) years old. The tumors were located in the upper and middle rectum in six patients, in the sigmoid colon in three, and in the ascending colon in four. The median maximum diameter of the tumors was 3.0 (1.8–5.0) cm. The surgery was performed by a robotic surgery system (or laparoscopy) with peritumoral D1 lymph node dissection at the first station in the tumor area. The tumors were resected under direct vision and the defects in the intestinal wall were using a robotic surgery system (or laparoscopy). A robotic surgery system was combined with colonoscopy in eight cases and laparoscopy combined with colonoscopy in the remaining five. Studied variables includes surgical and pathological features, postoperative factors, and outcomes.Results:Surgery was successful in all 13 patients with no need for conversion to open surgery or intraoperative blood transfusion. The median operating time was 85 (60–120) minutes, median intraoperative bleeding 3 (2–5) mL, median number of lymph nodes harvested 3 (1–5), and the median circumferential resection margin 0.8 (0.5–1.0) cm. Postoperative pathological examination showed lymph node metastasis in one patient, who therefore underwent additional radical surgery. The median postoperative time to ambulation was 1 (1–2) days. The urinary catheters of all patients were removed 1 day after surgery and the median length of stay was 4 (3–5) days. No abdominal infection, anastomotic leakage or bleeding occurred in any of the study patients. The median follow-up time was 10 (6–12) months, during which no tumor recurrence or metastasis was found, and the quality of life was satisfactory.Conclusions:The combination of two minimally invasive platforms, a robotic surgery system (or laparoscopy) and colonoscopy, is safe and feasible for resection of stage T1 colorectal cancer and has a good short-term prognosis.

Objective:To analyze and compare the efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic and open dorsal mesh rectopexy in the treatment of severe rectal prolapse.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients who had a full-thickness rectum pulled out of the anus before surgery and the length was greater than 8 cm, and underwent transabdominal dorsal mesh rectopexy were enrolled in the study. Those who had urinary or sexual dysfunction before surgery, could not perform sexual function scores due to lack of a fixed sexual partner or sexual activity after surgery, underwent laparotomy again during the perioperative period, were transferred to laparotomy during robotic or laparoscopic surgery, or had no complete information, were excluded. A total of 61 patients with severe rectal prolapse in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from 2014 to 2018 were enrolled and divided into robotic group (20 cases), laparoscopic group (20 cases) and open group (21 cases) according to the operative procedure based on patients' will. Perioperative parameters were compared among the 3 groups. The International Prostatic Symptoms Score Scale (IPSS, higher score indicates more severe urinary dysfunction), the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire (IIEF-15, lower score indicates more severe male sexual dysfunction) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-19, lower score indicates more severe female sexual dysfunction) were used to evaluate and compare the urinary and sexual function before and after operation.Results:There were no significant differences in baseline data among the 3 groups (all P>0.05). In the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups respectively, the operative time was (176.3±13.8) minutes, (160.2±12.1) minutes and (134.2±12.1) minutes; intraoperative blood loss was (58.5±18.9) ml, (67.9±15.7) ml and (114.2±8.4) ml; the first time to ambulation was (19.9±6.8) hours, (24.0±8.9) hours and (37.7±11.4) hours; the first time to gas passage was (31.8±6.8) hours, (35.7±8.9) hours and (49.2±11.2) hours; the hospitalization time was (11.0±1.4) days, (11.4±1.4) days and (13.3±2.1) days; whose differences among 3 groups were all significant (all P<0.001). While no significant differences in morbidity of complication and recurrence among 3 groups were observed (all P>0.05). In the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups respectively, the preoperative IPSS score was (4.2±1.7), (4.4±1.3), and (4.7±1.8); the IPSS score at postoperative 3-month was (8.5±2.5), (9.9±1.7), and (12.2±3.1); IPSS score at postoperative 12-month was (4.3±1.6), (5.8±1.3), and (6.3±1.5), respectively. Compared to preoperative score, postoperative IPSS score increased obviously, then decreased gradually ( P<0.001). Preoperative male IIEE score was (22.8±1.8), (22.1±2.1), and (22.6±1.5). In the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups respectively, male IIEE score at postoperative 6-month was (19.6±2.1), (17.1±2.1), and (15.0±2.1); male IIEE score at postoperative 12-month was (22.4±1.6), (19.9±1.5), (17.9±1.8), respectively. Preoperative female FSFI score was (26.4±3.4), (26.6±3.2), and (26.6±3.0); female FSFI score at postoperative 6-month was (21.5±3.3), (18.9±2.9), (17.0±2.6); female FSFI score at postoperative 12-month was (26.1±2.7), (22.7±3.2), and (21.2±2.3), respectively. Postoperative male IIEE score and female FSFI score decreased significantly and then increased gradually with time, whose differences were all significant (all P<0.05). Postoperative IPSS, IIEE, and FSFI scores in the robotic group were superior to those in the laparoscopic and open groups (all P<0.05). Conclusion:Robotic surgery is safe and effective in the treatment of severe rectal prolapse, and is more advantageous in preserving urinary function and sexual function.

Objective:To analyze and compare the efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic and open dorsal mesh rectopexy in the treatment of severe rectal prolapse.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients who had a full-thickness rectum pulled out of the anus before surgery and the length was greater than 8 cm, and underwent transabdominal dorsal mesh rectopexy were enrolled in the study. Those who had urinary or sexual dysfunction before surgery, could not perform sexual function scores due to lack of a fixed sexual partner or sexual activity after surgery, underwent laparotomy again during the perioperative period, were transferred to laparotomy during robotic or laparoscopic surgery, or had no complete information, were excluded. A total of 61 patients with severe rectal prolapse in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from 2014 to 2018 were enrolled and divided into robotic group (20 cases), laparoscopic group (20 cases) and open group (21 cases) according to the operative procedure based on patients' will. Perioperative parameters were compared among the 3 groups. The International Prostatic Symptoms Score Scale (IPSS, higher score indicates more severe urinary dysfunction), the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire (IIEF-15, lower score indicates more severe male sexual dysfunction) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-19, lower score indicates more severe female sexual dysfunction) were used to evaluate and compare the urinary and sexual function before and after operation.Results:There were no significant differences in baseline data among the 3 groups (all P>0.05). In the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups respectively, the operative time was (176.3±13.8) minutes, (160.2±12.1) minutes and (134.2±12.1) minutes; intraoperative blood loss was (58.5±18.9) ml, (67.9±15.7) ml and (114.2±8.4) ml; the first time to ambulation was (19.9±6.8) hours, (24.0±8.9) hours and (37.7±11.4) hours; the first time to gas passage was (31.8±6.8) hours, (35.7±8.9) hours and (49.2±11.2) hours; the hospitalization time was (11.0±1.4) days, (11.4±1.4) days and (13.3±2.1) days; whose differences among 3 groups were all significant (all P<0.001). While no significant differences in morbidity of complication and recurrence among 3 groups were observed (all P>0.05). In the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups respectively, the preoperative IPSS score was (4.2±1.7), (4.4±1.3), and (4.7±1.8); the IPSS score at postoperative 3-month was (8.5±2.5), (9.9±1.7), and (12.2±3.1); IPSS score at postoperative 12-month was (4.3±1.6), (5.8±1.3), and (6.3±1.5), respectively. Compared to preoperative score, postoperative IPSS score increased obviously, then decreased gradually ( P<0.001). Preoperative male IIEE score was (22.8±1.8), (22.1±2.1), and (22.6±1.5). In the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups respectively, male IIEE score at postoperative 6-month was (19.6±2.1), (17.1±2.1), and (15.0±2.1); male IIEE score at postoperative 12-month was (22.4±1.6), (19.9±1.5), (17.9±1.8), respectively. Preoperative female FSFI score was (26.4±3.4), (26.6±3.2), and (26.6±3.0); female FSFI score at postoperative 6-month was (21.5±3.3), (18.9±2.9), (17.0±2.6); female FSFI score at postoperative 12-month was (26.1±2.7), (22.7±3.2), and (21.2±2.3), respectively. Postoperative male IIEE score and female FSFI score decreased significantly and then increased gradually with time, whose differences were all significant (all P<0.05). Postoperative IPSS, IIEE, and FSFI scores in the robotic group were superior to those in the laparoscopic and open groups (all P<0.05). Conclusion:Robotic surgery is safe and effective in the treatment of severe rectal prolapse, and is more advantageous in preserving urinary function and sexual function.

OBJECTIVETo compare the clinical efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic radical surgery in the treatment of middle-low rectal cancers.

METHODSFrom January 2015 to March 2016, intra-operative and postoperative follow-up data of 30 patients with middle-low rectal cancers who underwent robotic radical resection(robot group) and 32 patients with middle-low rectal cancers who underwent laparoscopic radical resection (laparoscopy group)n in our department were retrospectively collected. The distance from cancer to anal margin was less than 10 cm in both two groups and advanced rectal cancers were confirmed by preoperative colonoscopy biopsy. Associated data were compared between two groups.

RESULTSThere were 13 males and 17 females in robot group with age of 27 to 85 (mean 59.7) years, disease course of 3 to 12 (mean 6.2) months and clinical stage T2-3N0-1. There were 16 males and 16 females in laparoscopic group with age of 32 to 79 (mean 60.3) years, disease course of 2 to 10(mean 5.9) months and clinical stage T2-3N0-1. The baseline data of two groups were not significantly different (all P>0.05). All the patients in two groups completed operations successfully without conversion to open operation. Compared with laparoscopic group, the blood loss was less [(100.3±43.7) ml vs. (150.3±68.2) ml, t=3.413, P=0.001], the first flatus time [(49.3±12.4) h vs. (58.6±12.5) h, t=2.838, P=0.006] and urinary catheter removal time [(3.0±0.7) d vs. (4.8±0.9) d, t=5.491, P=0.000] were shorter, while the operation time [(217.3±57.8) min vs. (187.9±23.1) min, t=2.772, P=0.009] was longer in robot group. No cancer tissue was observed in resection margin of two groups. Number of harvested lymph node per case (15.2±7.4 vs. 13.9±4.9, t=-0.764, P=0.448), distance from anal margin to tumor distal edge [(7±3) cm vs. (6.5±3) cm, t=-1.952, P=0.056] and postoperative hospital stay [(13.6±1.3) d vs. (13.8±1.8) d, t=0.925, P=0.359] were not significantly different between two groups. No serious complications occurred in two groups during intra-operative and postoperative period. During following up of 3 to 12 (average 8.7) months, 1 case of anastomotic fistula occurred in each group and was cured by conservative treatment without significant difference [3.3%(1/30) vs. 3.1%(1/32), P=1.000]. No sexual dysfunction was found in either groups. Two cases in laparoscopic group presented relapse and metastasis, but no recurrence and metastasis was observed in robot group. There was no death in two groups.

CONCLUSIONRobotic radical surgery in the treatment of middle-low rectal cancers is safe and effective with the advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, rapid recovery of intestinal function and urinary function.

Adult ; Aged ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; Comparative Effectiveness Research ; Defecation ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; methods ; Female ; Fistula ; etiology ; surgery ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; adverse effects ; Length of Stay ; Lymph Node Excision ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Operative Time ; Postoperative Period ; Recovery of Function ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; Treatment Outcome ; Urination