Advertisement

Hybrid Robotic Technique for Rectal Cancer: Low Anterior Resection and Perineal Resection

  • Timothy F. Feldmann
  • Raul M. Bosio
  • Alessio PigazziEmail author
Part of the Updates in Surgery book series (UPDATESSURG)

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer with over 1.4 million new cases each year [1]. As surgical technology has evolved so has the treatment for this disease. Rectal cancer resection is complicated by the anatomic configuration of the pelvis and the proximity of these tumors to the anus. Evolving optics have allowed for the increased use of laparoscopy to allow for better visualization during pelvic surgery however its use was not implemented initially. Both the technical challenge of laparoscopic rectal surgery and the concern over oncological outcome have made its widespread adoption limited. As more surgeons gain comfort with advanced laparoscopic techniques the only concern is of the oncologic benefit [2, 3, 4]. The Conventional vs. Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (CLASICC) trial examined oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open rectal resections. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a higher rate of positive circumferential margin; however this did not translate into an increase in local recurrence when compared to the open procedures [5]. Long-term follow-up from the CLASICC trial has continued to provide support for the safe use of laparoscopy in colon and rectal cancer. The overall survival at 5 years after a low anterior resection was 56.7% in the open group and 62.8% in the laparoscopic one; abdominal perineal resection showed similar results with an overall survival of 41.8% in open cases and 53.2% in laparoscopic cases [6]. The Colorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR II) trial has also advanced the use of laparoscopy and helped to show similarity in the completeness of mesorectal resection with a 10% rate of positive circumferential resection margin independent of the technique when specimens from patients randomly assigned to laparoscopy or open resection were analyzed [7].

Keywords

Inferior Mesenteric Artery Anterior Superior Iliac Spine Inferior Mesenteric Vein Camera Port Rectal Cancer Resection 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. GLOBOCAN 2012, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr, accessed on 3/20/14Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopical-ly assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group, Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J et al (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H et al (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25:306–308Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J et al (2010) Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:1638–1645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 randomized, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14:210–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baik SH, Ko YT, Kang CM et al (2008) Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc 22:1601–1608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JD, Ballantyne GH, Paz IB (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 20:1521–1525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dalton RS, Smart NJ, Edwards TJ et al (2012) Short-term outcomes of the prone perineal approach for extra-levator abdomino-perineal excision (elAPE). Surgeon 10:342–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bianchi PP, Luca F, Petz W et al (2013) The role of the robotic technique in minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer. Ecancermedicalscience 7:357PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Obias V, Sanchez C, Nam A et al (2011) Totally robotic single-position ‘flip’ arm technique for splenic flexure mobilizations and low anterior resections. Int J Med Robot 7:123–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hellan M, Stein H, Pigazzi A (2009) Totally robotic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and splenic flexure mobilization. Surg Endosc 23:447–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Schubert C et al (2011) Short-term outcome of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:919–925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy F. Feldmann
  • Raul M. Bosio
  • Alessio Pigazzi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of California IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations