Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Low Anterior Resection: Unique Considerations and Optimal Setup

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The SAGES Manual of Colorectal Surgery

  • 1271 Accesses

Abstract

In recent years, there has been dramatic progress of the robotic technique. Surgeons have observed obvious advantages in the ease of dissection, control of the operating field, and the ergonomics during demanding cases. Robotic low anterior resection employs a 3D camera and three working robotic arms with articulating wrists, as well as accessory laparoscopic ports. Robotic surgery appears to be safe, and the oncologic and functional outcomes are equivalent to that of traditional laparoscopic techniques. However, the cost of the robotic technique is higher. Currently, the robotic technology remains one of many tools in the surgical armamentarium for surgeons treating rectal cancer.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JD, Ballantyne GH, Paz IB. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2006;20(10):1521–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(12):3195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1569–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fleshman J, Branda ME, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George VV, Abbas MA, et al. Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage II to III rectal cancer: follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269(4):589–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Khan JS, Banerjee AK, Kim SH, Rockall TA, Jayne DG. Robotic rectal surgery has advantages over laparoscopic surgery in selected patients and centres. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20(10):845–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee L, de Lacy B, Gomez Ruiz M, Liberman AS, Albert MR, Monson JRT, et al. A multicenter matched comparison of transanal and robotic total mesorectal excision for mid and low-rectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002862. [Epub ahead of print].

  7. Rouanet P, Bertrand MM, Jarlier M, Mourregot A, Traore D, Taoum C, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for sphincter-saving surgery: Results of a single-center series of 400 consecutive patients and perspectives. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(12):3572–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zelhart M, Kaiser AM. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(1):24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Marecik S, Park JJ. Editorial. Promising times in rectal cancer treatment. Curr Med Res Pract. 2017;7:39–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Agcaoglu O, Aliyev S, Taskin HE, Chalikonda S, Walsh M, Costedio MM, et al. Malfunction and failure of robotic systems during general surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(12):3580–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Odermatt M, Ahmed J, Panteleimonitis S, Khan J, Parvaiz A. Prior experience in laparoscopic rectal surgery can minimise the learning curve for robotic rectal resections: a cumulative sum analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(10):4067–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery--the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg. 1982;69(10):613–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: The ALaCaRT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1356–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahmed J, Siddiqi N, Khan L, Kuzu A, Parvaiz A. Standardized technique for single-docking robotic rectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18(10):O380–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Toh JWT, Kim SH. Port positioning and docking for single-stage totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer surgery with the Si and Xi Da Vinci Surgical System. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(3):545–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Petz W, Spinoglio G, Choi GS, Parvaiz A, Santiago C, Marecik S, et al. Structured training and competence assessment in colorectal robotic surgery. Results of a consensus experts round table. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(4):634–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Commission on Cancer. National accreditation program for rectal cancer standards manual. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/naprc/standards. 2017.

  18. Velchuru VR, Domajnko B, deSouza A, Marecik S, Prasad LM, Park JJ, et al. Obesity increases the risk of postoperative peripheral neuropathy after minimally invasive colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(2):187–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Popeskou SG, Panteleimonitis S, Figueiredo N, Qureshi T, Parvaiz A. Robotic vascular ligation, medial to lateral dissection and splenic flexure mobilization for rectal cancer – a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20(2):165–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. DeSouza A, Domajnko B, Park J, Marecik S, Prasad L, Abcarian H. Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy? Surg Endosc. 2011;25(4):1031–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(12):2831–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Culligan K, Walsh S, Dunne C, Walsh M, Ryan S, Quondamatteo F, et al. The mesocolon: a histological and electron microscopic characterization of the mesenteric attachment of the colon prior to and after surgical mobilization. Ann Surg. 2014;260(6):1048–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kinugasa Y, Murakami G, Suzuki D, Sugihara K. Histological identification of fascial structures posterolateral to the rectum. Br J Surg. 2007;94(5):620–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bertrand MM, Colombo PE, Mourregot A, Traore D, Carrère S, Quénet F, et al. Standardized single docking, four arms and fully robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer: the key points are the ports and arms placement. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(2):171–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marecik SJ, Pai A, Sheikh T, Park JJ, Prasad LM. Transanal total mesorectal excision: save the nerves and Urethra. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(7):e410–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Prasad LM, deSouza AL, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Abcarian H. Robotic pursestring technique in low anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(2):230–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Raza SJ, Froghi S, Chowriappa A, Ahmed K, Field E, Stegemann AP, et al. Construct validation of the key components of Fundamental Skills of Robotic Surgery (FSRS) curriculum--a multi-institution prospective study. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(3):316–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tam MS, Kaoutzanis C, Mullard AJ, Regenbogen SE, Franz MG, Hendren S, et al. A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(2):455–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yamamoto S, Fukunaga M, Miyajima N, Okuda J, Konishi F, Watanabe M, et al. Impact of conversion on surgical outcomes after laparoscopic operation for rectal carcinoma: a retrospective study of 1,073 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(3):383–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Melich G, Hong YK, Kim J, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, et al. Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotics provides acceptable perioperative outcomes and shows robotics to have a faster learning curve and to be overall faster in rectal cancer surgery: analysis of novice MIS surgeon learning curves. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(3):558–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY. Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: lessons from a single surgeon’s experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(9):1066–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jiménez-Rodríguez RM, Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares M, Díaz-Pavón JM, Reyes-Díaz ML, Vazquez-Monchul JM, Garcia-Cabrera AM, et al. Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31(12):1807–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Melich G, Pai A, Shoela R, Kochar K, Patel S, Park J, et al. Rectal dissection simulator for da Vinci Surgery: details of simulator manufacturing with evidence of construct, face, and content validity. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(4):514–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ohtani H, Maeda K, Nomura S, Shinto O, Mizuyama Y, Nakagawa H, et al. Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. In Vivo. 2018;32(3):611–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Prete FP, Pezzolla A, Prete F, Testini M, Marzaioli R, Patriti A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2018;267(6):1034–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY, Yang CS, Lee HJ, et al. The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20(5):O103–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(8):2485–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Panteleimonitis S, Ahmed J, Harper M, Parvaiz A. Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;8(11):744–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Panteleimonitis S, Ahmed J, Ramachandra M, Farooq M, Harper M, Parvaiz A. Urogenital function in robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(2):241–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Park Ridge, IL, USA

    Slawomir Marecik, John J. Park & Kunal Kochar

  2. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Slawomir Marecik & Kunal Kochar

  3. Chicago Medical School, Chicago, IL, USA

    John J. Park

Authors
  1. Slawomir Marecik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John J. Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kunal Kochar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slawomir Marecik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    Patricia Sylla

  2. Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Andreas M. Kaiser

  3. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    Daniel Popowich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marecik, S., Park, J.J., Kochar, K. (2020). Robotic Low Anterior Resection: Unique Considerations and Optimal Setup. In: Sylla, P., Kaiser, A., Popowich, D. (eds) The SAGES Manual of Colorectal Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24812-3_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24812-3_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24811-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24812-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation