Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery: short-term outcomes for 113 consecutive patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term outcome of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer, including robotic, autonomic nerve-preserving, lateral lymph node dissection (RALLD), a new, technically challenging procedure.

Methods

Between December 2011 and August 2013, 113 consecutive patients underwent RALS for rectal cancer. Surgical outcomes, pathological results, and postoperative complications were prospectively collected.

Results

There were 78 males and 35 females; 30 patients (26.5 %) had cT1 tumor, 14 (12.4 %) had cT2, 56 (49.6 %) had cT3, and 12 (10.6 %) had cT4 tumor. The types of procedures performed were 82 anterior resections, 23 intersphincteric resections, and 8 abdominoperineal resections. RALLD was performed in 38 patients (33.6 %). The overall median operative time was 302 (135–683) min. In cases without RALLD, the median operative time was 242 (135–529) min, while median operative time was 486 (320–683) min with RALLD. None of the cases was converted to an open or laparoscopic procedure. There was no surgical mortality. The overall complication rate for Clavien-Dindo classification grade III–IV was 2.7 %. Ten patients who developed urinary retention recovered completely within 30 days after the operation.

Conclusions

RALS for rectal cancer is a technically feasible, less invasive procedure. This procedure can be performed with low morbidity and a low conversion rate, even for cases with advanced rectal cancer requiring complicated, robot-assisted, lateral lymph node dissection.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weeks JC, Nelson H, Gelber S, Sargent D, Schroeder G (2002) Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 287:321–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taura P, Pique JM et al (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359:2224–2229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shiomi A, Kinugasa Y, Yamaguchi T, Tsukamoto S, Tomioka H, Kagawa H (2013) Feasibility of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for patients with cT1-T2 low rectal cancer. Dig Surg 30:272–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moriya Y, Sugihara K, Akasu T, Fujita S (1995) Nerve-sparing surgery with lateral node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 31A:1229–1232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Watanabe T, Itabashi M, Shimada Y, Tanaka S, Ito Y, Ajioka Y et al (2012) Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2010 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 17:1–29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. Lowry AC, Simmang CL, Boulos P, Farmer KC, Finan PJ, Hyman N et al (2001) Consensus statement of definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer: report of the Tripartite Consensus Conference on Definitions for Anorectal Physiology and Rectal Cancer, Washington, D.C., May 1, 1999. Dis Colon Rectum 44:915–919

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kinugasa Y, Murakami G, Suzuki D, Sugihara K (2007) Histological identification of fascial structures posterolateral to the rectum. Br J Surg 94:620–626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol

  12. Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P, Shi C, Zou Y, Qin H et al (2012) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol

  13. Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R, Cavaliere D, Avenia N, Sciannameo F et al (2012) Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Color Dis 14:e134–e156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Baek SJ, Kim SH, Cho JS, Shin JW, Kim J (2012) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a cost analysis from a single institute in Korea. World J Surg 36:2722–2729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH (2011) S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 25:240–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fujita S, Akasu T, Mizusawa J, Saito N, Kinugasa Y, Kanemitsu Y et al (2012) Postoperative morbidity and mortality after mesorectal excision with and without lateral lymph node dissection for clinical stage II or stage III lower rectal cancer (JCOG0212): results from a multicentre, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 13:616–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH (2010) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 17:3195–3202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shiomi A, Ito M, Saito N, Hirai T, Ohue M, Kubo Y et al (2011) The indications for a diverting stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective multicentre study of 222 patients from Japanese cancer centers. Color Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 13:1384–1389

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kwak JM, Kim SH, Kim J, Son DN, Baek SJ, Cho JS (2011) Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case–control study. Dis Colon Rectum 54:151–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, Hur H, Sohn SK, Cho CH et al (2009) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1480–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Akasu T, Sugihara K, Moriya Y (2009) Male urinary and sexual functions after mesorectal excision alone or in combination with extended lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 16:2779–2786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Akiyoshi T, Kuroyanagi H, Oya M, Konishi T, Fukuda M, Fujimoto Y et al (2009) Factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with double stapling technique anastomosis for low rectal cancer. Surgery 146:483–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS (1986) Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet 2:996–999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Financial support for this study was not provided. All authors report no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Divisions of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan

    Akio Shiomi, Yusuke Kinugasa, Tomohiro Yamaguchi, Hiroyuki Tomioka & Hiroyasu Kagawa

Authors
  1. Akio Shiomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yusuke Kinugasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomohiro Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroyuki Tomioka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hiroyasu Kagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akio Shiomi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1921-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation