Literature DB >> 15657669

Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases.

Annibale D'Annibale1, Emilio Morpurgo, Valentino Fiscon, Paolo Trevisan, Gianna Sovernigo, Camillo Orsini, Daniela Guidolin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In the last ten years, several robotic systems have been developed to overcome the loss of the three-dimensional view and dexterity characteristic of laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the traditional laparoscopic approach and robotic techniques in the treatment of colorectal diseases.
METHODS: The study compares a consecutive series of patients treated surgically for colorectal disease from June 2001 to May 2003 with the da Vinci robotic system (Intuitive Surgical) and a matched number of patients who underwent conventional laparoscopy during the same time interval. The factors analyzed were the time required to prepare the patient and the room, total time of surgery, length of specimens, number of lymph nodes retrieved, blood loss, complications, and postoperative results.
RESULTS: The study included 106 patients (53 in each group). No differences were observed in total time of surgery (laparoscopic group, 222 +/- 77 minutes vs. robotic group, 240 +/- 61 minutes), specimen length (laparoscopic group, 29 +/- 11 cm vs. robotic group, 27 +/- 13 cm), or number of lymph nodes retrieved (laparoscopic group, 16 +/- 9 vs. robotic group, 17 +/- 10). It took significantly longer to prepare the operating room and patient in the robotic group (24 +/- 12 minutes) than in the laparoscopic group (18 +/- 7 minutes). There were three conversions to laparotomy in the laparoscopic group; in the robotic group, two cases were converted to laparoscopy and three to hand-assisted laparoscopy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of recovery of bowel function and postoperative hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted surgery proved to be as safe and effective as laparoscopic techniques in the treatment of colorectal diseases. Because of its dexterity and three-dimensional view, the da Vinci system was particularly useful in specific stages of the procedure, e.g., takedown of the splenic flexure, dissection of a narrow pelvis, identification of nervous plexus, and handsewn anastomosis. The cost-effectiveness of the procedure still needs to be evaluated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15657669     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-0711-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  120 in total

1.  Robotic colon and rectal surgery: a series of 131 cases.

Authors:  Andrea Zimmern; Leela Prasad; Ashwin Desouza; Slawomir Marecik; John Park; Herand Abcarian
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Shuang Lin; Hong-Gang Jiang; Zhi-Heng Chen; Shu-Yang Zhou; Xiao-Sun Liu; Ji-Ren Yu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current status and perspectives.

Authors:  Roberto Biffi; Fabrizio Luca; Paolo Pietro Bianchi; Sabina Cenciarelli; Wanda Petz; Igor Monsellato; Manuela Valvo; Maria Laura Cossu; Tiago Leal Ghezzi; Kassem Shmaissany
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions.

Authors:  Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection.

Authors:  Deborah S Keller; Anthony J Senagore; Justin K Lawrence; Brad J Champagne; Conor P Delaney
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Robotic left colon cancer resection: a dual docking technique that maximizes splenic flexure mobilization.

Authors:  Sung Uk Bae; Se Jin Baek; Hyuk Hur; Seung Hyuk Baik; Nam Kyu Kim; Byung Soh Min
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer in the US: a skewed population.

Authors:  Asya Ofshteyn; Katherine Bingmer; Christopher W Towe; Emily Steinhagen; Sharon L Stein
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Robotic surgery in Italy national survey (2011).

Authors:  Eugenio Santoro; Vito Pansadoro
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2012-12-08

9.  Use of the Xi robotic platform for total abdominal colectomy: a step forward in minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Rosa M Jimenez-Rodriguez; Felipe Quezada-Diaz; Madeline Tchack; Emmanouil Pappou; Iris H Wei; J Joshua Smith; Garrett M Nash; Jose G Guillem; Philip B Paty; Martin R Weiser; Julio Garcia-Aguilar
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Jun Seok Park; Hyun Kang; Soo Yeun Park; Hye Jin Kim; In Teak Woo; In-Kyu Park; Gyu-Seog Choi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.