Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1691–1692 | Cite as

Advances and high demands in totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer

  • Christos Katsios
  • Georgios Baltogiannis

Open low anterior resection for tumors located in the lower third of the rectum has three goals: precision of total mesorectal excision (TME), safe distal margins to prevent local recurrence after a sphincter-preserving procedure, and high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery with splenic flexure mobilization. Can these surgical aims be achieved with a minimally invasive approach such as laparoscopic or robotic surgery? Park et al. [1] highlight this question in their report on robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the March issue of Surgical Endoscopy.

The standard of care for patients with resectable rectal cancer includes TME. This surgical strategy can improve both oncologic and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. Sphincter-preserving surgery, if feasible from an oncologic point of view, is crucial for the patient’s QOL. Therefore, low anterior resection (LAR) currently is thought to be the optimal surgical treatment if local recurrence can be...


Rectal Cancer Total Mesorectal Excision Inferior Mesenteric Artery Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision Splenic Flexure Mobilization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Christos Katsios and Georgios Baltogiannis have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Park YA, Kim JM, Kim SA, Min BS, Kim NK, Sohn SK, Lee KY (2010) Totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer: from splenic flexure to pelvic floor in one setup. Surg Endosc 24:715–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Poon JT, Law WL (2009) Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a review. Ann Surg Oncol 16:3038–3047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheung YM, Lange MM, Buunen M, Lange JF (2009) Current technique of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME): an international questionnaire among 368 surgeons. Surg Endosc 23:2796–2801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katsios GC, Baltogiannis G; Roukos DH (2010) Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: comparative-effectiveness research and future trends. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 10(4):473–476Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liakakos T, Roukos DH (2009) Randomized evidence for laparoscopic gastrectomy short-term quality-of-life improvement and challenges for improving long-term outcomes. Ann Surg 250:349–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liakakos T, Roukos D (2008) Laparoscopic gastrectomy: advances enable wide clinical application. Surg Endosc 22:1553–1555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roukos DH (2009) Laparoscopic gastrectomy and personal genomics: high-volume surgeons and predictive biomedicine may govern the future for resectable gastric cancer. Ann Surg 250:650–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ziogas D, Polychronidis A, Kanellos I, Roukos D (2009) Laparoscopic colectomy survival benefit for colon cancer: is evidence from a randomized trial true? Ann Surg 249:695–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ziogas D, Roukos D (2008) Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: may it improve also survival? Surg Endosc. 22:1405–1406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bali C, Ziogas D, Roukos DH, Baltogiannis G (2010) Laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection: expectations for improving oncological outcomes. Ann Surg 251:185–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glantzounis GK, Roukos DH, Baltogiannis G (2010) Comparative-effectiveness research to standardize retrieved nodes for quality control in colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 252(1):202–203; author reply 203Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roukos DH (2009) Personalized cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 9:227–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roukos DH (2009) Mea culpa with cancer-targeted therapy: new thinking and new agents design for novel, causal networks-based, personalized biomedicine. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 9:217–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roukos DH (2009) Genome-wide association studies: how predictable is a person’s cancer risk? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 9:389–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roukos DH (2009) Twenty-one-gene assay: challenges and promises in translating personal genomics and whole-genome scans into personalized treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:1337–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roukos DH (2009) Radiation therapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 360:1362, author reply 1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ziogas D, Roukos DH (2009) CDH1 testing: can it predict the prophylactic or therapeutic nature of total gastrectomy in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer? Ann Surg Oncol 16:2678–2681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roukos DH, Ziogas D (2010) From tumor size and HER2 status to systems oncology for very early breast cancer treatment. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 10:123–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roukos DH (2009) Isolated tumor cells in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 361:1994–1995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roukos DH, Tzakos A, Zografos G (2009) Current concerns and challenges towards tailored anti-angiogenic therapy in cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 9:1413–1416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roukos DH (2009) Breast cancer outcomes: the crucial role of the breast surgeon in the era of personal genetics and systems biology. Ann Surg 249:1067–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ziogas D, Roukos DH (2009) Genetics and personal genomics for personalized breast cancer surgery: progress and challenges in research and clinical practice. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1771–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roukos DH, Ziogas D (2009) Human genetic and structural genomic variation: would genome-wide association studies be the solution for cancer complexity like Alexander the Great for the “Gordian Knot”? Ann Surg Oncol 16:774–775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roukos DH (2010) Targeting gastric cancer with trastuzumab: new clinical practice and innovative developments to overcome resistance. Ann Surg Oncol 17:14–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roukos DH (2010) Novel clinico-genome network modelling for revolutionizing genotype-phenotype-based personalized cancer care. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 10:33–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roukos DH (2010) Systems medicine: a real approach for future personalized oncology? Pharmacogenomics 11:283–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roukos DH (2010) Bionetworks-based personalized medicine versus comparative-effectiveness research or harmonization of both in cancer management? Expert Rev Mol Diagn 10(3):247–250Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roukos DH (2010) Beyond HER2 and trastuzumab: heterogeneity, systems biology, and cancer origin research may guide the future for personalized treatment of very early but aggressive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(17):e279–e280; author reply e282–e283Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Katsios C, Roukos DH (2010) Individual genomes and personalized medicine: life diversity and complexity. Personalized Med 7(4):347–350Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Ioannina, School of MedicineIoanninaGreece

Personalised recommendations