Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

  • Colorectal Cancer
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes and surgical quality of robot-assisted (RAP) and laparoscopic (LAP) total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low rectal cancer.

Methods

From December 2007 to June 2009, 41 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent TME by robot-assisted procedures. The lowest tumor margins were below peritoneal reflection and 1.0–8.0 cm above the anal verge. These patients were matched 1:2 by age, gender, body mass index, date of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and tumor stage, with 82 patients who underwent conventional LAP. Macroscopic quality of the specimens and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared.

Results

Mean operation time was 168.0 ± 49.3 min for LAP group and 231.9 ± 61.4 min for RAP group (P < 0.001). Time to regular diet (RAP, 6.7 days vs. LAP, 6.6 days) and length of stay (RAP, 9.9 days vs. LAP, 9.4 days) were similar. The proportion of surgeries performed with the modified natural orifice techniques (totally intracorporeal procedures with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (RAP, 48.8% vs. LAP, 13.4%; P < 0.001). There were no between-group differences in specimen quality, including distal resection margins, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margins. The overall major complication rates were similar (RAP, 9.8% vs. LAP, 7.3%; P = 0.641).

Conclusions

RAP was safe and effective for patients with low rectal cancer. Furthermore, the technical advantages of robot surgical systems may allow a novel approach using hybrid natural orifice 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

References

  1. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:2224–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lam SC, et al. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1187–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:477–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bonjer HJ, Hop WC, Nelson H, et al. Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2007;142:298–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3061–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Corcione F, Esposito C, Cuccurullo D, et al. Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:117–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW. Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1633–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A, et al. The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:438–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1480–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hellan M, Anderson C, Ellenhorn JD, Paz B, Pigazzi A. Short-term outcomes after robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3168–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Park YA, Kim JM, Kim SA, et al. Totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer: from splenic flexure to pelvic floor in one setup. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:715–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Park IJ, Choi GS, Lim KH, Kang BM, Jun SH. Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:275–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Choi GS, Park IJ, Kang BM, Lim KH, Jun SH. A novel approach of robotic-assisted anterior resection with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of the specimen for colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2831–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Park IJ, Choi GS, Lim KH, Kang BM, Jun SH. Laparoscopic resection of extraperitoneal rectal cancer: a comparative analysis with open resection. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1818–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH. Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:1689–94; discussion 1695–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:2162–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Luca F, Cenciarelli S, Valvo M, et al. Full robotic left colon and rectal cancer resection: technique and early outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1274–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baik SH, Ko YT, Kang CM, et al. Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1601–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;170:1738–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hellan M, Stein H, Pigazzi A. Totally robotic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and splenic flexure mobilization. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:447–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Targarona EM, Balague C, Marin J, et al. Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis. Surg Innov. 2005;12:339–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Morino M, Rimonda R, Allaix ME, Giraudo G, Garrone C. Ultrasonic versus standard electric dissection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2005;242:897–901; discussion 901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Campagnacci R, de Sanctis A, Baldarelli M, Rimini M, Lezoche G, Guerrieri M. Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device vs. ultrasonic coagulating shears in laparoscopic colectomies: a comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1526–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Kyungpook National University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

    Jun Seok Park MD, Gyu-Seog Choi MD, Kyoung Hoon Lim MD, You Seok Jang MD & Soo Han Jun MD

Authors
  1. Jun Seok Park MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gyu-Seog Choi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyoung Hoon Lim MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. You Seok Jang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Soo Han Jun MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gyu-Seog Choi MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Park, J.S., Choi, GS., Lim, K.H. et al. Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 17, 3195–3202 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation