Anterior robotic approach in en-bloc sacrectomy: a preliminary experience

  • Giacomo Corrado
  • Carmine Zoccali
  • Nicola Salducca
  • Andrea Oddi
  • Enrico Vizza
  • Roberto Biagini
Original Article


En-bloc sacrectomy is a highly demanding surgical procedure necessary to obtain wide margin in sacral tumor. The double approach, anterior and posterior approach, is usually preferred for tumors extending proximally to S3 level where iliac internal vessels are at a higher risk for damage during posterior surgery. It can be justified also in selected cases to decrease the risk of posterior approach as in local recurrence or in patients who already underwent laparotomy. Our intent was to apply robotic-assisted techniques for performing anterior preparatory approach for sacrectomy surgery. Between December 2010 and December 2014, three cases of sacrectomies were performed in a previous robotic-assisted preparatory approach to separate the rectum from the tumor. Dissections were successfully performed in all cases close to the pelvic floor. The surgeon was able to position a Gore-Tex spacer between the anterior tumor surface and the rectum in all cases. The anterior dissections were performed with a perfect control of bleeding. No complications related to the anterior approach were reported. Robot-assisted surgery can be considered a valid and minimally invasive technique which allows a safe anterior dissection of the pelvic structures dividing tumors from surrounding tissues. It allows to place a spacer to protect organs during posterior sacral resection performed on the same day or at a later time. Further experiences are advocated to evaluate its efficiency in sacral tumors of greater size.


En-bloc sacrectomy Robot-assisted surgery Minimally invasive surgery 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest; no funding was received for the present study.


  1. 1.
    Zhang HY, Thongtrangan I, Balabhadra RS et al (2003) Surgical techniques for total sacrectomy and spinopelvic reconstruction. Neurosurg Focus 15(2):E5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zoccali C, Skoch J, Patel A et al (2015) The surgical eurovascular anatomy relating to partial and complete sacral and sacroiliac resections: a cadaveric, anatomic study. Eur Spine J 24(5):1109–1113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zoccali C, Ferrraresi V, Rossi B et al (2015) Intermediate grade vertebral osteosarcoma in a patient affected by a sacral chondrosarcoma and hereditary multiple exostosis. Minerva Med 106(2):115–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services (2017) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0.
  5. 5.
    World Medical Association Inc (2009) Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Indian Med Assoc 107(6):403–405Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM et al (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5331–5336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):418–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sert BM, Abeler VM (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (Piver type III) with pelvic node dissection—case report. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 27:531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yim GW, Kim YT (2012) Robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 24(1):14–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vizza E, Corrado G, Mancini E et al (2015) Laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a case control study. Eur J Surg Oncol 41(1):142–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holloway RW, Ahmad S, DeNardis SA et al (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: analysis of surgical performance. Gynecol Oncol 115:447–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Richardson DL et al (2009) A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvicaortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 114:162–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sgarbura O, Vasilescu C (2010) The decisive role of the patient-side surgeon in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 24:3149–3155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET et al (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:783–791CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U et al (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111:407–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lau S, Vaknin Z, Ramana-Kumar AV, Halliday D et al (2012) Outcomes and cost comparisons after introducing a robotics program for endometrial cancer surgery. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):717–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Department of Health of Women and ChildrenCatholic University of Sacred HeartRomeItaly
  2. 2.Orthopedic Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology“Regina Elena” National Cancer InstituteRomeItaly
  3. 3.Liver and Pancreatic Surgical Unit, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology“Regina Elena” National Cancer InstituteRomeItaly
  4. 4.Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology“Regina Elena” National Cancer InstituteRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations