PURPOSE: Minimal invasive surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) can be challenging. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic resections in mid and low rectal cancers after LCRT. METHODS: Between Jan 2006 and Dec 2010, all patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic resections for mid and low rectal cancers after LCRT were identified from a prospective database. These patients received treatment (5FU-based chemotherapy, 50.4 Gy radiotherapy), as they were T3 or T4 and/or node + ve. Patients in the two groups were compared with respect to demographics, clinical safety, and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients underwent rectal cancer resection after LCRT, either robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64). The patients in both groups were comparable in terms of demographics, distance of tumor from anal verge, and type of procedures. There were four (6.3 %) conversions in laparoscopic group and one (1.4 %) in the robotic group (p = 0.183). The morbidity rates in the laparoscopic and robotic group were 26.6 % and 16.2 %, respectively (p = 0.137). With a median follow up of 3 years, the local recurrence in the laparoscopic and robotic group was four (6.3 %) and two (2.7 %), respectively (p = 0.420). The 3-year overall survival rate for laparoscopic and robotic group was 92.1 and 90.0 %, respectively (p = 0.803). The 3-year disease-free survival was also comparable, 78.8 % (laparoscopic) versus 77.7 % (robotic) (p = 0.390). CONCLUSION: With a median follow up of 3 years, robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer was associated with oncological outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery.
PURPOSE: Minimal invasive surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) can be challenging. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic resections in mid and low rectal cancers after LCRT. METHODS: Between Jan 2006 and Dec 2010, all patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic resections for mid and low rectal cancers after LCRT were identified from a prospective database. These patients received treatment (5FU-based chemotherapy, 50.4 Gy radiotherapy), as they were T3 or T4 and/or node + ve. Patients in the two groups were compared with respect to demographics, clinical safety, and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients underwent rectal cancer resection after LCRT, either robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64). The patients in both groups were comparable in terms of demographics, distance of tumor from anal verge, and type of procedures. There were four (6.3 %) conversions in laparoscopic group and one (1.4 %) in the robotic group (p = 0.183). The morbidity rates in the laparoscopic and robotic group were 26.6 % and 16.2 %, respectively (p = 0.137). With a median follow up of 3 years, the local recurrence in the laparoscopic and robotic group was four (6.3 %) and two (2.7 %), respectively (p = 0.420). The 3-year overall survival rate for laparoscopic and robotic group was 92.1 and 90.0 %, respectively (p = 0.803). The 3-year disease-free survival was also comparable, 78.8 % (laparoscopic) versus 77.7 % (robotic) (p = 0.390). CONCLUSION: With a median follow up of 3 years, robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer was associated with oncological outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery.
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: 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: Mark Buunen; Ruben Veldkamp; Wim C J Hop; Esther Kuhry; Johannes Jeekel; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio Lacy; Hendrik J Bonjer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Fatima G Wilder; Atuhani Burnett; Joseph Oliver; Michael F Demyen; Ravi J Chokshi Journal: Indian J Surg Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 0.656
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: Michael S Tam; Christodoulos Kaoutzanis; Andrew J Mullard; Scott E Regenbogen; Michael G Franz; Samantha Hendren; Greta Krapohl; James F Vandewarker; Richard M Lampman; Robert K Cleary Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: J Shibata; S Ishihara; N Tada; K Kawai; N H Tsuno; H Yamaguchi; E Sunami; J Kitayama; T Watanabe Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 3.781