Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 12/2010

01-12-2010 | Colorectal Cancer

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

Authors: Jun Seok Park, MD, Gyu-Seog Choi, MD, Kyoung Hoon Lim, MD, You Seok Jang, MD, Soo Han Jun, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 12/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes and surgical quality of robot-assisted (RAP) and laparoscopic (LAP) total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low rectal cancer.

Methods

From December 2007 to June 2009, 41 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent TME by robot-assisted procedures. The lowest tumor margins were below peritoneal reflection and 1.0–8.0 cm above the anal verge. These patients were matched 1:2 by age, gender, body mass index, date of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and tumor stage, with 82 patients who underwent conventional LAP. Macroscopic quality of the specimens and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared.

Results

Mean operation time was 168.0 ± 49.3 min for LAP group and 231.9 ± 61.4 min for RAP group (P < 0.001). Time to regular diet (RAP, 6.7 days vs. LAP, 6.6 days) and length of stay (RAP, 9.9 days vs. LAP, 9.4 days) were similar. The proportion of surgeries performed with the modified natural orifice techniques (totally intracorporeal procedures with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (RAP, 48.8% vs. LAP, 13.4%; P < 0.001). There were no between-group differences in specimen quality, including distal resection margins, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margins. The overall major complication rates were similar (RAP, 9.8% vs. LAP, 7.3%; P = 0.641).

Conclusions

RAP was safe and effective for patients with low rectal cancer. Furthermore, the technical advantages of robot surgical systems may allow a novel approach using hybrid natural orifice surgery.
Literature
1.
Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:2224–9.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lam SC, et al. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1187–92.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–9.
4.
Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–26.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:477–84.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Bonjer HJ, Hop WC, Nelson H, et al. Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2007;142:298–303.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3061–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Corcione F, Esposito C, Cuccurullo D, et al. Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:117–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW. Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1633–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A, et al. The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:438–43.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1480–7.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hellan M, Anderson C, Ellenhorn JD, Paz B, Pigazzi A. Short-term outcomes after robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3168–73.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Park YA, Kim JM, Kim SA, et al. Totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer: from splenic flexure to pelvic floor in one setup. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:715–20.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Park IJ, Choi GS, Lim KH, Kang BM, Jun SH. Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:275–81.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Choi GS, Park IJ, Kang BM, Lim KH, Jun SH. A novel approach of robotic-assisted anterior resection with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of the specimen for colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2831–5.CrossRef
16.
Park IJ, Choi GS, Lim KH, Kang BM, Jun SH. Laparoscopic resection of extraperitoneal rectal cancer: a comparative analysis with open resection. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1818–24.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH. Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:1689–94; discussion 1695–6.CrossRefPubMed
19.
D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:2162–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Luca F, Cenciarelli S, Valvo M, et al. Full robotic left colon and rectal cancer resection: technique and early outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1274–8.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Baik SH, Ko YT, Kang CM, et al. Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1601–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;170:1738–41.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Hellan M, Stein H, Pigazzi A. Totally robotic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and splenic flexure mobilization. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:447–51.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Targarona EM, Balague C, Marin J, et al. Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis. Surg Innov. 2005;12:339–44.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Morino M, Rimonda R, Allaix ME, Giraudo G, Garrone C. Ultrasonic versus standard electric dissection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2005;242:897–901; discussion 901.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Campagnacci R, de Sanctis A, Baldarelli M, Rimini M, Lezoche G, Guerrieri M. Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device vs. ultrasonic coagulating shears in laparoscopic colectomies: a comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1526–31.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes
Authors
Jun Seok Park, MD
Gyu-Seog Choi, MD
Kyoung Hoon Lim, MD
You Seok Jang, MD
Soo Han Jun, MD
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 12/2010
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5

Other articles of this Issue 12/2010

Annals of Surgical Oncology 12/2010 Go to the issue

Gastrointestinal Oncology

CpG Methylation of Transcription Factor 4 in Gastric Carcinoma

Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma: Clinical Presentation, Treatment, and Outcome in a Series of 33 Patients at a Single Institution

Pancreatic Tumors

Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Distal Pancreatic Cancer: Is There a Role?

Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

Health Insurance Status Affects Staging and Influences Treatment Strategies in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Original Article – Hepatobiliary Tumors

Retrohepatic Vena Cava Resection Associated With Right Trisectionectomy and Caudate Lobectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Translational Research and Biomarkers

Jun Activation Domain Binding Protein 1 is Overexpressed from the Very Early Stages of Hepatocarcinogenesis