S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer
- 843 Downloads
In recent years, robot-assisted surgery using the da Vinci System® has been proposed as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted rectal resection for cancer.
Two hundred sixty-three patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection between 2007 and 2009 were included. Patients were classified into an open surgery group (OS, n = 88), a laparoscopic surgery group (LAP, n = 123), and a robot-assisted group (RAP, n = 52). Data analyzed include operating time, length of recovery, methods of specimen extraction, quality of total mesorectal excision, and morbidity.
The mean operating time was 233.8 ± 59.2 min for the OS group, 158.1 ± 49.2 min for the LAP group, and 232.6 ± 52.4 min for the RAP group (p < 0.001). Patients from the LAP and RAP groups recovered significantly faster than did those from the OS group (p < 0.05). The proportion of operations performed through a natural orifice (intracorporeal anastomosis with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (p < 0.001). The specimen quality—with a distal resection margin, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margin—did not differ among the three groups. The overall complication rates were 20.5, 12.2, and 19.2% in the OS, LAP, and RAP groups, respectively (p = 0.229).
RAP and LAP reproduce the equivalent short-term results of standard OS while providing the advantages of minimal access. For the experienced laparoscopic colorectal oncologist, use of the da Vinci robot resulted in no significant short-term clinical benefit over the conventional laparoscopic approach.
KeywordsRobotic surgery Short-term outcome Rectal cancer
Drs. Park, Choi, Lim, Jang, and Jun have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 5.Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Nelson H (2007) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg 246(4):655–662 discussion 662-654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365(9472):1718–1726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Veljovich DS, Paley PJ, Drescher CW, Everett EN, Shah C, Peters WA 3rd (2008) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(6):679 e1-e9; discussion 679 e9-10Google Scholar
- 27.Wexner SD (2007) Restorative proctectomy with colon pouch-anal anastomosis by laparoscopic transanal pull-through: an available option for low rectal cancer? Surg Endosc 21(9):1679Google Scholar
- 32.Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69(10):613-616Google Scholar