Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease 6/2016

01-06-2016 | Original Article

Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients

Authors: Jin Cheon Kim, Chang Sik Yu, Seok-Byung Lim, In Ja Park, Chan Wook Kim, Yong Sik Yoon

Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Issue 6/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Because there are few comparative studies of open, laparoscopy-assisted (LA), and robot-assisted (RA) total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, we aimed to compare these three procedures in terms of sphincter-saving operation (SSO) achievement, surgical complications, and early oncological outcomes.

Methods

The short-term outcomes of 2114 patients with rectal cancer consecutively enrolled between July 2010 and February 2015 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) were retrospectively evaluated. Patients underwent either open, LA, or RA TME (n = 1095, 486, and 533, respectively) performed by experienced surgeons.

Results

RA TME was a significant determinant of SSO in multivariate analysis that included potential variables such as tumor location and T4 category (odds ratio, 2.458; 95 % confidence interval, 1.497–4.036; p < 0.001). The cumulative rates of 3-year local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival did not differ among the three groups: 2.5–3.4, 91.9–94.6, and 82.2–83.1 % (p = 0.85, 0.352, and 0.944, respectively). Early general surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open group than in the LA and RA groups (19.3 versus 13.0 versus 12.2 %, p < 0.001), specifically ileus and wound infection.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in 3-year survival outcomes and local recurrence among open, LA, and RA TME. RA TME is useful for SSO achievement, regardless of advanced stage and location of rectal cancer. The open procedure had a slightly but significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications than LA and RA.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Vennix S, Pelzers L, Bouvy N et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4, CD005200PubMed Vennix S, Pelzers L, Bouvy N et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4, CD005200PubMed
2.
go back to reference Martling AL, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, Cedemark B (2000) Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Basingstoke Bowel Cancer Research Project. Lancet 356:93–96CrossRefPubMed Martling AL, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, Cedemark B (2000) Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Basingstoke Bowel Cancer Research Project. Lancet 356:93–96CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Peeters KC, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID et al (2007) The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg 246:693–701CrossRefPubMed Peeters KC, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID et al (2007) The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg 246:693–701CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Lange MM, Rutten HJ, van de Velde CJ (2009) One hundred years of curative surgery for rectal cancer: 1908–2008. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:456–463CrossRefPubMed Lange MM, Rutten HJ, van de Velde CJ (2009) One hundred years of curative surgery for rectal cancer: 1908–2008. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:456–463CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ (2010) Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:1638–1645CrossRefPubMed Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ (2010) Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:1638–1645CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA et al (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332CrossRefPubMed Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA et al (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH et al (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774CrossRefPubMed Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH et al (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Smith JJ, Garcia-Aguilar J (2015) Advances and challenges in treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:1797–1808CrossRefPubMed Smith JJ, Garcia-Aguilar J (2015) Advances and challenges in treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:1797–1808CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Miskovic D, Foster J, Agha A et al (2015) Standardization of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a structured international expert consensus. Ann Surg 261:716–722CrossRefPubMed Miskovic D, Foster J, Agha A et al (2015) Standardization of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a structured international expert consensus. Ann Surg 261:716–722CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18:816–830CrossRefPubMed Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18:816–830CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Araujo SE, Seid VD, Klajner S (2014) Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: current immediate clinical and oncological outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 20:14359–14370CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Araujo SE, Seid VD, Klajner S (2014) Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: current immediate clinical and oncological outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 20:14359–14370CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Kim JC, Yang SS, Jang TY, Kwak JY, Yun MJ, Lim SB (2012) Open versus robot-assisted sphincter-saving operations in rectal cancer patients: techniques and comparison of outcomes between groups of 100 matched patients. Int J Med Robot 8:468–475CrossRefPubMed Kim JC, Yang SS, Jang TY, Kwak JY, Yun MJ, Lim SB (2012) Open versus robot-assisted sphincter-saving operations in rectal cancer patients: techniques and comparison of outcomes between groups of 100 matched patients. Int J Med Robot 8:468–475CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Kim JC, Lim SB, Yoon YS, Park IJ, Kim CW, Kim CN (2014) Completely abdominal intersphincteric resection for lower rectal cancer: feasibility and comparison of robot-assisted and open surgery. Surg Endosc 28:2734–2744CrossRefPubMed Kim JC, Lim SB, Yoon YS, Park IJ, Kim CW, Kim CN (2014) Completely abdominal intersphincteric resection for lower rectal cancer: feasibility and comparison of robot-assisted and open surgery. Surg Endosc 28:2734–2744CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Denost Q, Adam JP, Rullier A, Buscail E, Laurent C, Rullier E (2014) Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial. Ann Surg 260:993–999CrossRefPubMed Denost Q, Adam JP, Rullier A, Buscail E, Laurent C, Rullier E (2014) Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial. Ann Surg 260:993–999CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Speicher PJ, Englum BR, Ganapathi AM, Nussbaum DP, Mantyh CR, Migaly J (2015) Robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a national perspective on short-term oncologic outcomes. Ann Surg 262:1040–1045CrossRefPubMed Speicher PJ, Englum BR, Ganapathi AM, Nussbaum DP, Mantyh CR, Migaly J (2015) Robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a national perspective on short-term oncologic outcomes. Ann Surg 262:1040–1045CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Kim JC, Yu CS, Lim SB, Kim CW, Park IJ, Yoon YS (2015) Outcomes of ultra-low anterior resection combined with or without intersphincteric resection in lower rectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:1311–1321CrossRefPubMed Kim JC, Yu CS, Lim SB, Kim CW, Park IJ, Yoon YS (2015) Outcomes of ultra-low anterior resection combined with or without intersphincteric resection in lower rectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:1311–1321CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Qu H, Liu Y, Bi DS (2015) Clinical risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 29:3608–3617CrossRefPubMed Qu H, Liu Y, Bi DS (2015) Clinical risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 29:3608–3617CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ et al (2015) Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 261:129–137CrossRefPubMed Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ et al (2015) Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 261:129–137CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Dinnewitzer A, Jäger T, Nawara C, Buchner S, Wolfgang H, Öfner D (2013) Cumulative incidence of permanent stoma after sphincter preserving low anterior resection of mid and low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 56:1134–1142CrossRefPubMed Dinnewitzer A, Jäger T, Nawara C, Buchner S, Wolfgang H, Öfner D (2013) Cumulative incidence of permanent stoma after sphincter preserving low anterior resection of mid and low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 56:1134–1142CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH (2012) A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2485–2493CrossRefPubMed Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH (2012) A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2485–2493CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Lim RS, Yang TX, Chua TC (2014) Postoperative bladder and sexual function in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open resection of rectal cancer. Technol Coloproctol 18:993–1002CrossRef Lim RS, Yang TX, Chua TC (2014) Postoperative bladder and sexual function in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open resection of rectal cancer. Technol Coloproctol 18:993–1002CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Pahlman L, Bujko K, Rutkowski A, Michalski W (2013) Altering the therapeutic paradigm towards a distal bowel margin of <1 cm in patients with low-lying rectal cancer: a systematic review and commentary. Colorectal Dis 15:e166–e174CrossRefPubMed Pahlman L, Bujko K, Rutkowski A, Michalski W (2013) Altering the therapeutic paradigm towards a distal bowel margin of <1 cm in patients with low-lying rectal cancer: a systematic review and commentary. Colorectal Dis 15:e166–e174CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Lykke J, Roikjaer O, Jess P, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2014) Tumour stage and preoperative chemoradiotherapy influence the lymph node yield in stages I-III rectal cancer: results from a prospective nationwide cohort study. Colorectal Dis 16:O144–O149CrossRefPubMed Lykke J, Roikjaer O, Jess P, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2014) Tumour stage and preoperative chemoradiotherapy influence the lymph node yield in stages I-III rectal cancer: results from a prospective nationwide cohort study. Colorectal Dis 16:O144–O149CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
go back to reference Amato A, Pescatori M (2006) Perioperative blood transfusions for the recurrence of colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1, CD005033PubMed Amato A, Pescatori M (2006) Perioperative blood transfusions for the recurrence of colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1, CD005033PubMed
27.
go back to reference Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, Sasapu K, Sagar P, Finan P (2011) Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 253:890–899CrossRefPubMed Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, Sasapu K, Sagar P, Finan P (2011) Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 253:890–899CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients
Authors
Jin Cheon Kim
Chang Sik Yu
Seok-Byung Lim
In Ja Park
Chan Wook Kim
Yong Sik Yoon
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2586-6

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

International Journal of Colorectal Disease 6/2016 Go to the issue