PURPOSE: In recent years, colorectal cancer surgery has benefitted from new techniques such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery. However, many treatment disparities exist among different centers for patients affected by the same kind of tumors. METHODS: Forty-five (41%) open (OCO) vs. 30 (28%) laparoscopic (LCO) vs. 34 (31%) robotic-assisted (RCO) colectomies and 34 (40%) open (ORR) vs. 52 (60%) robotic (ROR) rectal resections performed during a 15-month period, in elective setting, were compared. Patients presenting contraindications for minimally invasive procedures were excluded from the study, so that all the enrolled patients were suitable for either of the surgical procedures. RESULTS: Overall morbidity rates were similar among groups. Perioperative mortality was nil. No significant differences were noted as for total number of lymph nodes harvested between arms. Mean time (days) to first bowel movement to gas was 3.3 vs. 2.3 vs. 2.6 for OCO, LCO, and RCO, respectively (p < 0.001), and 3.3 vs. 2.0 for ORR and ROR, respectively (p = 0.003). Among several European Organization in Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 functional scales considered only physical functioning was significantly better at 30 days for RCO vs. OCO (96.3 ± 10 RCO vs. 85.5 ± 12.6 OCO; p = 0.015). Robotic surgery was much more expensive in comparison to open as well as laparoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries for colorectal cancer present both the same advantages in comparison to open procedures in terms of faster recovery. However, our data do not seem to support the routine use of RCO as a cost-effective procedure.
PURPOSE: In recent years, colorectal cancer surgery has benefitted from new techniques such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery. However, many treatment disparities exist among different centers for patients affected by the same kind of tumors. METHODS: Forty-five (41%) open (OCO) vs. 30 (28%) laparoscopic (LCO) vs. 34 (31%) robotic-assisted (RCO) colectomies and 34 (40%) open (ORR) vs. 52 (60%) robotic (ROR) rectal resections performed during a 15-month period, in elective setting, were compared. Patients presenting contraindications for minimally invasive procedures were excluded from the study, so that all the enrolled patients were suitable for either of the surgical procedures. RESULTS: Overall morbidity rates were similar among groups. Perioperative mortality was nil. No significant differences were noted as for total number of lymph nodes harvested between arms. Mean time (days) to first bowel movement to gas was 3.3 vs. 2.3 vs. 2.6 for OCO, LCO, and RCO, respectively (p < 0.001), and 3.3 vs. 2.0 for ORR and ROR, respectively (p = 0.003). Among several European Organization in Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 functional scales considered only physical functioning was significantly better at 30 days for RCO vs. OCO (96.3 ± 10 RCO vs. 85.5 ± 12.6 OCO; p = 0.015). Robotic surgery was much more expensive in comparison to open as well as laparoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries for colorectal cancer present both the same advantages in comparison to open procedures in terms of faster recovery. However, our data do not seem to support the routine use of RCO as a cost-effective procedure.
Authors: Sergio Maeso; Mercedes Reza; Julio A Mayol; Juan A Blasco; Mercedes Guerra; Elena Andradas; María N Plana Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P M King; J M Blazeby; P Ewings; P J Franks; R J Longman; A H Kendrick; R M Kipling; R H Kennedy Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: P P Bianchi; C Ceriani; A Locatelli; G Spinoglio; M G Zampino; A Sonzogni; C Crosta; B Andreoni Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert L Smith; Jamie K Bohl; Shannon T McElearney; Charles M Friel; Margaret M Barclay; Robert G Sawyer; Eugene F Foley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Peter J Hewett; Randall A Allardyce; Philip F Bagshaw; Christopher M Frampton; Francis A Frizelle; Nicholas A Rieger; J Shona Smith; Michael J Solomon; Jacqueline H Stephens; Andrew R L Stevenson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Benedetto Ielpo; H Duran; E Diaz; I Fabra; R Caruso; L Malavé; V Ferri; J Nuñez; A Ruiz-Ocaña; E Jorge; S Lazzaro; D Kalivaci; Y Quijano; E Vicente Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Wissam J Halabi; Celeste Y Kang; Mehraneh D Jafari; Vinh Q Nguyen; Joseph C Carmichael; Steven Mills; Michael J Stamos; Alessio Pigazzi Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.352