Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer—Comparative Study Between Two Centres

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We compared short-term and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic surgery versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancers patients. Study was conducted at the National Cancer Institute and Yonsei Cancer Centre from August 2006 to December 2012. We prospectively reviewed all patients who underwent RS and HALS for upper and middle third rectal cancers. Patients’ demographics, postoperative short-term and long-term outcomes were assessed. Baseline patients’ characteristics were similar in both groups. Average operative time was 321.3 ± 70 min for robotic surgery versus 106.0 ± 37 min for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, P < 0.001). Higher number of patients (n = 74, 94.9%) with tumour in the upper rectum was found in hand-assisted laparoscopic group (P < 0.01). Perioperative complications were more common in the robotic surgery group (9 vs. 5 patients). In all stages, 3-year overall survival was 86.9% in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group vs. 89.6% in the robotic group: 80.0% vs. 79.2 for stage I and 82.4% vs. 88.9 for stage II and III. The 3-year DFS was 83.6% in hand-assisted laparoscopic group vs. 83.2%—robotic surgery group considering all stages. Anastomotic leakage, bleeding, number of postoperative complications, overall survival and disease-free survival were similar and not much different between robotic and hand-assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

Not available.

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.1 (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386.1

  2. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69:613–616

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rodríguez-Luna MR, Guarneros-Zárate JE, Tueme-Izaguirre J (2015) Total mesorectal excision, an erroneous anatomical term for the gold standard in rectal cancer treatment. Int J Surg 23:97–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Samalavicius NE, Gupta RK, Dulskas A, Kazanavicius D, Petrulis K, Lunevicius R (2013) Clinical outcomes of 103 hand-assisted laparoscopic surgeries for left-sided colon and rectal cancer: single institutional review. Ann Coloproctol 29:225–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Xiong B, Ma L, Huang W, Zhao Q, Cheng Y, Liu J (2015) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies. J Gastrointest Surg 19:516–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baek SJ, Kim CH, Cho MS, Bae SU, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH, Lee KY, Kim NK (2015) Robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome difficulties associated with pelvic anatomy. Surg Endosc 29:1419–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Koh FH, Tan KK, Lieske B, Tsang ML, Tsang CB, Koh DC (2014) Endowrist versus wrist: a case-controlled study comparing robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 24:452–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bosman FTCF, Hruban RH, Theise ND (2010) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system, 4th edn

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shuppan K (2006) Japanese Research Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus. 7th ed, revised version Tokyo, Japan

  11. Oba K, Paoletti X, Alberts S, Bang YJ, Benedetti J, Bleiberg H, Catalano P, Lordick F, Michiels S, Morita S, Ohashi Y, Pignon JP, Rougier P, Sasako M, Sakamoto J, Sargent D, Shitara K, Cutsem EV, Buyse M, Burzykowski T, GASTRIC group (2013) Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in adjuvant trials of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 105:1600–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim NK, Kim YW, Cho MS (2015) Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with emphasis on pelvic autonomic nerve preservation: expert technical tips for robotic surgery. Surg Oncol 24:172–180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dulskas A, Samalavicius NE, Gupta RK, Zabulis V, Samalavicius RS, Kutkauskiene J, Escalante R (2015) Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for left sided colorectal cancer: is quality of surgery related with experience? Eur Surg 47:238–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Healy LA, Ryan AM, Sutton E et al (2010) Impact of obesity on surgical and oncological outcomes in the management of colorectal cancer. Int J Color Dis 5:1293–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khoury W, Stocchi L, Geisler D (2011) Outcomes after laparoscopic intestinal resection in obese versus non-obese patients. Br J Surg 98:293–298

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Park JW, Lim SW, Choi HS, Jeong SY, Oh JH, Lim SB (2010) The impact of obesity on outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in Asians. Surg Endosc 24:1679–1685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Scheidbach H, Benedix F, Hugel O et al (2008) Laparoscopic approach to colorectal procedures in the obese patient: risk factor or benefit? Obes Surg 18:66–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heneghan HM, Martin ST, Kiran RP, Khoury W, Stocchi L, Remzi FH, Vogel JD (2013) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery for obese patients: decreased conversions with the hand-assisted technique. J Gastrointest Surg 17:548–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harr JN, Luka S, Kankaria A, Juo YY, Agarwal S, Obias V (2017) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in obese patients: a case-matched series. Surg Endosc 31:2813–2819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gorgun E, Ozben V, Costedio M, Stocchi L, Kalady M, Remzi F (2016) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients. Color Dis 18:1063–1071

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Shiomi A, Kinugasa Y, Yamaguchi T, Kagawa H, Yamakawa Y (2016) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for lower rectal cancer: the impact of visceral obesity on surgical outcomes. Int J Color Dis 31:1701–1710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bhama AR, Wafa AM, Ferraro J, Collins SD, Mullard AJ, Vandewarker JF, Krapohl G, Byrn JC, Cleary RK (2016) Comparison of risk factors for unplanned conversion from laparoscopic and robotic to open colorectal surgery using the Michigan surgical quality collaborative (MSQC) database. J Gastrointest Surg 20:1223–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sun Y, Xu H, Li Z, Han J, Song W, Wang J, Xu Z (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 14:61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yamaguchi T, Kinugasa Y, Shiomi A, Tomioka H, Kagawa H, Yamakawa Y (2016) Robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center. Surg Today 46:957–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Myers EA, Feingold DL, Arnell TD, Njoh L, Cekic V, Jang JH, Naffouje S, Whelan RL (2014) The rate for the use of hand-assisted laparoscopic methods is directly proportional to body mass index. Surg Endosc 28:108–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Benlice C, Costedio M, Stocchi L, Abbas MA, Gorgun E (2016) Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs open colectomy: an assessment from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted cohort. Am J Surg 212(5):808–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Benlice C, Costedio M, Kessler H, Remzi FH, Gorgun E (2016) Comparison of straight vs hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: an assessment from the NSQIP procedure-targeted cohort. Am J Surg 212:406–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Park EJ, Kim CW, Cho MS, Kim DW, Min BS, Baik SH, Lee KY, Kim NK (2014) Is the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection shorter than laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer?: a comparative analysis of clinicopathologic outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries. Medicine (Baltimore) 93(25):e109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hellan M, Ouellette J, Lagares-Garcia JA, Rauh SM, Kennedy HL, Nicholson JD, Nesbitt D, Johnson CS, Pigazzi A (2015) Robotic rectal cancer resection: a retrospective multicenter analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 22(7):2151–2158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simillis C, Lal N, Thoukididou SN, Kontovounisios C, Smith JJ, Hompes R, Adamina M, Tekkis PP (2019) Open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Surg 270(1):59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Abdominal and General Surgery and Oncology, National Cancer Institute, 1 Santariskiu Str., 08406, Vilnius, LT, Lithuania

    Audrius Dulskas

  2. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

    Audrius Dulskas, Mahdi Albandar, Yoon Dae Han & Nam Kyu Kim

  3. Clinic of Internal, Family Medicine and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Audrius Dulskas & Narimantas E. Samalavicius

  4. Faculty of Health Care, University of Applied Sciences, 45 Didlaukio Str., 08303, Vilnius, LT, Lithuania

    Audrius Dulskas

  5. Department of Surgery, Klaipeda University Hospital, 41 Liepojos Str., 92288, Klaipeda, LT, Lithuania

    Narimantas E. Samalavicius

Authors
  1. Audrius Dulskas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahdi Albandar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Narimantas E. Samalavicius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yoon Dae Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nam Kyu Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AD, MA and YDH analysed the data. AD and MA wrote the manuscript. NES, VU and NKK supervised the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Audrius Dulskas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Ethical approvals were received prior the study.

.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dulskas, A., Albandar, M., Samalavicius, N.E. et al. Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer—Comparative Study Between Two Centres. Indian J Surg 83, 48–54 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-020-02287-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-020-02287-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation