Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of this procedure at our institution.

Methods

From December 2011 to December 2016, patients who underwent robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer were investigated. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and pathological results were evaluated retrospectively.

Results

There were 31 patients; 17 men (54.8%) and 14 women (45.2%), with a median age of 65 years (range 40–82 years). Twenty-one patients (67.7%) had a cT4 tumor, 9 patients (29.0%) had a pT4b tumor, and all patients except one (96.8%) underwent complete resection of the primary tumor with negative resection margins. Eleven patients (35.5%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The most commonly resected organ was the vaginal wall (n = 12, 38.7%), followed by the prostate (n = 10, 32.3%). Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 20 patients (64.5%). The median operative time was 394 min (range 189–549 min), and the median blood loss was 41 mL (range 0–502 mL). None of the patients received intraoperative blood transfusions or required conversion to open. Overall, postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients (35.5%). The most frequent complication was urinary retention (n = 5, 16.1%), and none of the patients developed serious complications classified as Clavien–Dindo grades III–V.

Conclusions

Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer is safe and technically feasible.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group, Buunen M, Veldkamp R et al (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70310-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E et al (2007) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg 246:655–662. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318155a762 (discussion 662-654)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14:210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70016-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA et al (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414882

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY et al (2010) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 11:637–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70131-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH et al (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70205-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ (2010) Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:1638–1645. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Akiyoshi T (2016) Technical feasibility of laparoscopic extended surgery beyond total mesorectal excision for primary or recurrent rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 22:718–726. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i2.718

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-015-1266-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yamaguchi T, Kinugasa Y, Shiomi A, Tomioka H, Kagawa H (2016) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 30:721–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4266-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sun Y, Xu H, Li Z et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 14:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-0816-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang Y, Zhao GH, Yang H, Lin J (2016) A pooled analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:259–264. https://doi.org/10.1097/sle.0000000000000263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shin US, Nancy You Y, Nguyen AT et al (2016) Oncologic outcomes of extended robotic resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23:2249–2257. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5117-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shin JW, Kim J, Kwak JM et al (2014) First report: robotic pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 16:O9–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Watanabe T, Itabashi M, Shimada Y et al (2015) Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2014 for treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 20:207–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0801-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kagawa H, Kinugasa Y, Shiomi A et al (2015) Robotic-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for lower rectal cancer: short-term outcomes in 50 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc 29:995–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3760-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. International Union against C, Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2010) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Akiyoshi T, Watanabe T, Miyata S et al (2012) Results of a Japanese nationwide multi-institutional study on lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in low rectal cancer: is it regional or distant disease? Ann Surg 255:1129–1134. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182565d9d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Shiomi A, Kinugasa Y, Yamaguchi T, Tomioka H, Kagawa H (2014) Robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery: short-term outcomes for 113 consecutive patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:1105–1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1921-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Heslov SF, Frost DB (1988) Extended resection for primary colorectal carcinoma involving adjacent organs or structures. Cancer 62:1637–1640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1356–1363. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.12009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. de’Angelis N, Landi F, Vitali GC et al (2016) Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5332-9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bretagnol F, Dedieu A, Zappa M, Guedj N, Ferron M, Panis Y (2011) T4 colorectal cancer: is laparoscopic resection contraindicated? Colorectal Dis 13:138–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02380.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zerey M, Hawver LM, Awad Z et al (2013) SAGES evidence-based guidelines for the laparoscopic resection of curable colon and rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2592-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lehnert T, Methner M, Pollok A, Schaible A, Hinz U, Herfarth C (2002) Multivisceral resection for locally advanced primary colon and rectal cancer: an analysis of prognostic factors in 201 patients. Ann Surg 235:217–225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Manas MJ, Espin E, Lopez-Cano M, Vallribera F, Armengol-Carrasco M (2015) Multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer: prognostic factors influencing outcome. Scand J Surg 104:154–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496914552341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith JD, Nash GM, Weiser MR, Temple LK, Guillem JG, Paty PB (2012) Multivisceral resections for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 99:1137–1143. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8820

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim KY, Hwang DW, Park YK, Lee HS (2012) A single surgeon’s experience with 54 consecutive cases of multivisceral resection for locally advanced primary colorectal cancer: can the laparoscopic approach be performed safely? Surg Endosc 26:493–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1907-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nagasue Y, Akiyoshi T, Ueno M et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open multivisceral resection for primary colorectal cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 17:1299–1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2222-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yamaguchi T, Kinugasa Y, Shiomi A et al (2015) Learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: use of the cumulative sum method. Surg Endosc 29:1679–1685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3855-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ et al (2015) Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 261:129–137. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000000613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Winters BR, Mann GN, Louie O, Wright JL (2015) Robotic total pelvic exenteration with laparoscopic rectus flap: initial experience. Case Rep Surg 2015:835425. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/835425

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Yamaguchi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of our hospital (28-J140-28-1-3). Research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 81 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hino, H., Yamaguchi, T., Kinugasa, Y. et al. Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center. Tech Coloproctol 21, 879–886 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1710-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1710-0

Keywords

Navigation