Literature DB >> 24562546

Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for robotic surgery.

Li-Jen Kuo1, Yen-Kuang Lin, Chun-Chao Chang, Cheng-Jeng Tai, Jeng-Fong Chiou, Yu-Jia Chang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the feasibility of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer. Further, we attempted to analyze the learning curve for robotic surgery.
METHODS: A total of 64 patients were retrospectively chart-reviewed. Patients were classified into a laparoscopic procedure (n = 28) group and a robot-assisted (n = 36) group. Comparisons of age, gender, clinical staging, operating time, complications, and pathologic status were analyzed. Besides, we used a seventh-order moving average method for the construction of a learning curve in robotic surgery.
RESULTS: Operating time was 374.3 min (range, 210-570 min) in the laparoscopic group and 485.8 min (range, 315-720 min) in the robotic group, with statistical difference between these two groups (P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (46.4 %) received diverting stoma in the laparoscopic group and seven patients (19.4 %) in the robotic group, with statistical difference between these two groups (P = 0.021). Operative experience of robotic ISR showed that the mean operating time was 519.5 min (range, 360-720 min) in the first stage and 448.2 min (range, 315-585 min) in the second stage, with statistical difference between these two stages (P = 0.02). Multifactorial analysis showed that protective diverting stoma creation or neorectum necrosis was not associated with age, sex, pretreatment T stage, or surgeons' experience.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows that robot-assisted ISR for low rectal cancer is feasible and safe with no compromising oncological outcomes. The surgeons' experience improves operating time in robotic surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24562546     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-014-1841-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  26 in total

Review 1.  Robotic surgery: a current perspective.

Authors:  Anthony R Lanfranco; Andres E Castellanos; Jaydev P Desai; William C Meyers
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  Treatment of non-disseminated cancer of the lower rectum.

Authors:  R J Nicholls; C Hall
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes.

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

4.  Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

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

5.  Short-term clinical outcome of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a retrospective comparison with conventional laparoscopy.

Authors:  Soo Yeun Park; Gyu-Seog Choi; Jun Seok Park; Hye Jin Kim; Jong-Pil Ryuk
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-06-30       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study.

Authors:  Seung Hyuk Baik; Hye Youn Kwon; Jin Soo Kim; Hyuk Hur; Seung Kook Sohn; Chang Hwan Cho; Hoguen Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

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

8.  Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer.

Authors:  J Lujan; G Valero; Q Hernandez; A Sanchez; M D Frutos; P Parrilla
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Laparoscopic-assisted versus open abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Simon S M Ng; Ka Lau Leung; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Jimmy C M Li; Anthony Y B Teoh; Wing Wa Leung
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-04-05       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Reza Chamlou; Yann Parc; Tabassome Simon; Malika Bennis; Nidal Dehni; Rolland Parc; Emmanuel Tiret
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database.

Authors:  Anuradha R Bhama; Vincent Obias; Kathleen B Welch; James F Vandewarker; Robert K Cleary
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery.

Authors:  Luise I M Pernar; Faith C Robertson; Ali Tavakkoli; Eric G Sheu; David C Brooks; Douglas S Smink
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  A systematic review of the learning curve in robotic surgery: range and heterogeneity.

Authors:  I Kassite; T Bejan-Angoulvant; H Lardy; A Binet
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice.

Authors:  Matthew Zelhart; Andreas M Kaiser
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery.

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

7.  Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Authors:  Ka Ting Ng; Azlan Kok Vui Tsia; Vanessa Yu Ling Chong
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Robot-assisted intersphincteric resection facilitates an efficient sphincter-saving in patients with low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jin Cheon Kim; Jong Lyul Lee; Abdulrahman Muaod Alotaibi; Yong Sik Yoon; Chan Wook Kim; In Ja Park
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Oncological and anorectal functional outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection in lower rectal cancer, particularly the extent of sphincter resection and sphincter saving.

Authors:  Jin Cheon Kim; Jong Lyul Lee; Joon Woo Bong; Ji Hyun Seo; Chan Wook Kim; Seong Ho Park; Jihoon Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Seon Heui Lee; Sungwon Lim; Jin Hee Kim; Kil Yeon Lee
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 1.859

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.