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
Techniques in Coloproctology
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 5/2017

01-05-2017 | Original Article

Patient quality of life and short-term surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic anterior resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum

Authors: D. Kamali, K. Omar, S. Z. Imam, A. Jha, A. Reddy, M. Jha

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare patient quality of life (QoL) and short-term surgical outcomes between robotic anterior resection (r-AR) and laparoscopic (l-AR) approach.

Methods

Consecutive patients having undergone either robotic or laparoscopic AR for adenocarcinoma were studied. All operations were performed by two surgeons experienced in laparoscopic and recently introduced robotic surgery. Surgical outcomes were determined by post-operative histology and short-term complications. QoL was prospectively assessed using the EORTC QLC-CR30 and QLC-CR29 questionnaires.

Results

In total, 36 patients (18 r-AR) with a median follow-up of 12 months following surgery (9-month robotic and 20-month laparoscopic) were studied. The two groups were similarly matched for age and gender. Laparoscopic patients had a lower ASA grade (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in surgical outcomes between groups. r-AR patients reported lower pain scales (2 ± 6 vs. 11 ± 13) (p = 0.04), lower levels of insomnia 0 vs. 8 ± 15 (p = 0.04) and a lower abdominal pain scale (2 ± 9 vs. 17 ± 27) (p = 0.04). Male impotence scores were higher in l-AR 33 ± 35 compared to r-AR 7 ± 21 (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Despite its recent introduction to our centre, the quality of oncological resection using the robotic surgery is comparable to laparoscopy. Lower impotence and QoL scores in patients after robotic procedure may be explained on the basis of better visualisation and precise tissue handling.
Literature
1.
Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6(7):477–484CrossRefPubMed
2.
Freshman J, Branda M, Sargent D et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs. open resection of stage II or II Rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the acosog Z6051 Randomised Clinical Trial. JAMA 314(13):1346–1355CrossRef
3.
Stevenson ARL, for the ALaCaRT Investigators et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1356–1363CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bartels SA, Vlug MS, Ubbink DT, Bemelman WA (2010) Quality of life after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 16(40):5035–5041CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Ng KH, Lim YK, Ho KS, Ooi BS, Eu KW (2009) Robotic-assisted surgery for low rectal dissection: from better views to better outcome. Singapore Med J 50(8):763–767PubMed
6.
Wibe A et al (2004) Oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision for cure for cancer of the lower rectum: anterior vs. abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 47(1):48–58CrossRefPubMed
7.
Moszkowicz D et al (2011) Where does pelvic nerve injury occur during rectal surgery for cancer? Colorectal Dis 13(12):1326–1334CrossRefPubMed
8.
Hassan I, Cima RR (2007) Quality of life after rectal resection and multimodality therapy. J Surg Oncol 96(8):684–692CrossRefPubMed
9.
Baek SJ, Al-Asari S, Jeong DH, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH et al (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27:4157–4163CrossRefPubMed
10.
Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A, Spinoglio G, Zampino MG, Sonzogni A et al (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 24(11):2888–2894CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fernandez R, Anaya DA, Li LT, Orcutt ST, Balentine CJ, Awad SA et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer in a veteran population. Am J Surg 206(4):509–517CrossRefPubMed
12.
Aaronson NK et al (1993) The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376CrossRefPubMed
13.
Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomlyet A, on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group (2001) The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual, 3rd edn. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels
14.
Heald RJ et al (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69:613–616CrossRefPubMed
15.
Pigazzi A, Luca F, Patriti A et al (2010) Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 17(6):1614–1620CrossRefPubMed
16.
Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A, Udo J, Brölmann H, Kennedy RH et al (2009) The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc 23(2):438–443CrossRefPubMed
17.
Arndt V, Merx H, Stegmaier C et al (2004) Quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer 1 year after diagnosis compared with the general population: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol 22:4829–4836CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kinoshita et al (2015) A longitudinal study of gender differences in quality of life among Japanese patients with lower rectal cancer treated with sphincter-saving surgery: a 1-year follow-up. World J Surg Oncol 13:91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Engel J, Kerr J, Schlesinger-Raab A, Eckel R, Sauer H, Hölzel D (2003) Quality of life in rectal cancer patients: a four-year prospective study. Ann Surg 238(2):203–213PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Ramsey SD, Andersen MR, Etzioni R et al (2000) Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 88(6):1294–1303CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Mossman J, Boudioni M, Slevin ML (1999) Cancer information: a cost-effective intervention. Eur J Cancer 35:1587–1591CrossRefPubMed
23.
Hartford et al (2013) Randomized controlled trial of a telephone intervention by nurses to provide information and support to patients and their partners after elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery: effects of anxiety. Heart Lung 31(3):199–206CrossRef
24.
Havenga K et al (2000) Avoiding long-term disturbance to bladder and sexual function in pelvic surgery, particularly with rectal cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 18(3):235–243CrossRefPubMed
25.
Nishizawa Y, Ito M, Saito N et al (2011) Male sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 26(12):1541–1548CrossRefPubMed
26.
Asoglu O et al (2009) Impact of laparoscopic surgery on bladder and sexual function after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 23:296–302CrossRefPubMed
27.
Jayne DG, Brown JM, Thorpe H, Walker J, Guillou P, Guillou PJ (2005) Bladder and sexual function following resection for rectal cancer in a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open technique. Br J Surg 92(9):1124–1132CrossRefPubMed
28.
Broholm M, Pommergaard HC, Gögenür I (2015) Possible benefits of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery regarding urological and sexual dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 17(5):375–381CrossRefPubMed
29.
Nelson H et al (2001) Guidelines 2000 for Colon and Rectal Cancer Surgery. Natl Cancer Inst 93(8):583–596CrossRef
30.
Cho MS, Min BS (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic single port anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 28(323):0930–2794
31.
Kayano H, Okuda J, Tanaka K, Kondo K, Tanigawa N (2011) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 9:2972–2979CrossRef
32.
33.
Kim et al (2014) Is prior laparoscopy experience required for adaptation to robotic rectal surgery?: feasibility of one-step transition from open to robotic surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 29(6):693–699CrossRefPubMed
34.
Fucini C, Gattai R, Urena C et al (2008) Quality of life among five-year survivors after treatment for very low rectal cancer with or without a permanent abdominal stoma. Ann Surg Oncol 15(4):1099–1106CrossRefPubMed
35.
De Campos-Lobato LF, Alves-Ferreira PC, Lavery IC, Kiran RP (2011) Abdominoperineal resection does not decrease quality of life in patients with low rectal cancer. Clinics. 66(6):1035–1040CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Schmidt CE, Bestmann B, Kuchler T, Longo WE, Kremer B (2005) Prospective evaluation of quality of life of patients receiving either abdominoperineal resection or sphincter-pre- serving procedure for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 12(2):117–123CrossRefPubMed
37.
RObotic Versus LAparoscopic Resection for Rectal Cancer An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01736072
38.
Luca F, Valvo M, Ghezzi TL, Zuccaro M, Cenciarelli S, Trovato C et al (2013) Impact of robotic surgery on sexual and urinary functions after fully robotic nerve- sparing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 257(4):672–678. doi:10.​1097/​SLA.​0b013e318269d03b​ CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient quality of life and short-term surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic anterior resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum
Authors
D. Kamali
K. Omar
S. Z. Imam
A. Jha
A. Reddy
M. Jha
Publication date
01-05-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1631-y

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Techniques in Coloproctology 5/2017 Go to the issue

Correspondence

Decreased blood flow to the posterior anal canal shown during Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation explains anodermal ischemia in anal fissure

Author's Reply

Treatment of spondylodiscitis after rectopexy: surgery is always required—Fauheron JL, Trilling B

Trick of the Trade

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of extra-rectal lesions

Correspondence

Application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in assessment of technical performance in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: common mistakes and methodological issues

Technical Note

A three-dimensional pelvic model made with a three-dimensional printer: applications for laparoscopic surgery to treat rectal cancer

Original Article

Autologous adipose tissue-derived stem cells for the treatment of complex perianal fistulas not associated with Crohn’s disease: a phase II clinical trial for safety and efficacy