Jae Keun Oh1, Moon Sool Yang, Do Heum Yoon, Koon Ho Rha, Keung Nyun Kim, Seong Yi, Yoon Ha. 1. *Department of Neurosurgery, Spine Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang †Department of Neurosurgery, Bupyeong Serim Hospital, Bupyeong ‡Department of Neurosurgery, Spine and Spinal Cord Research Institute §Department of Urology ∥Da Vinci Training Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Clinical case series and analysis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of robotic presacral tumor resection compared with conventional open approach. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Conventional open approach for huge presacral tumors in the retroperitoneal space often demands excessive hospitalization and poor cosmesis. Furthermore, narrow surgical field sometimes interrupt delicate procedures. METHODS: Nine patients with huge (diameter >10 cm) presacral tumors underwent surgery. Five patients among them had robotic procedure and the others had open transperitoneal tumor resection. Operation time, blood loss, hospitalization, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Robotic presacral tumor resection showed shorter operation time, less bleeding, and shorter hospitalization. Moreover, there was no complication related to abdominal adhesion. CONCLUSIONS: Although robotic resection for presacral tumor still has limitations technically and economically, robotic resection for huge presacral tumors demonstrated advantages over open resection specifically for benign neurogenic tumors.
STUDY DESIGN: Clinical case series and analysis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of robotic presacral tumor resection compared with conventional open approach. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Conventional open approach for huge presacral tumors in the retroperitoneal space often demands excessive hospitalization and poor cosmesis. Furthermore, narrow surgical field sometimes interrupt delicate procedures. METHODS: Nine patients with huge (diameter >10 cm) presacral tumors underwent surgery. Five patients among them had robotic procedure and the others had open transperitoneal tumor resection. Operation time, blood loss, hospitalization, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Robotic presacral tumor resection showed shorter operation time, less bleeding, and shorter hospitalization. Moreover, there was no complication related to abdominal adhesion. CONCLUSIONS: Although robotic resection for presacral tumor still has limitations technically and economically, robotic resection for huge presacral tumors demonstrated advantages over open resection specifically for benign neurogenic tumors.