Literature DB >> 24651959

Analysis of conversion factors in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

Rosa M Jiménez Rodríguez1, Fernando De la Portilla De Juan, José M Díaz Pavón, Alberto Rodríguez Rodríguez, Emilio Prendes Sillero, Jean Marie Cadet Dussort, Javier Padillo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgical management of rectal cancer has a series of advantages which might facilitate the surgical approach to the pelvic cavity and reduce conversion rates. The aim of the present study is to identify independent factors for conversion during robotic rectal cancer surgery.
METHODS: A total of 67 patients underwent preoperative CT scan in order to obtain a three-dimensional image of the pelvis, the tumour and prostate. We measured maximum and minimum ilio-iliac, sacral promontory-pubis, coccyx-pubis diameters and maximum lateral axis. Further variables under consideration were age, BMI and use of neoadjuvant therapy. We recorded short-term follow-up outcomes of the resected tumour.
RESULTS: The present study included 67 patients (39 males) with an average age of 65.11 ± 10.30 years and a BMI of 27.70 ± 3.97 kg/m(2). Operative procedures included nine abdominoperineal resections and 58 low anterior resections. There were 15 (22.38 %) conversions. Mean operating time was 192.2 ± 42.73 min. Minimum ilio-iliac, maximum ilio-iliac, promontory-pubic and coccyx-pubis diameter as well as maximum lateral axis were 100.38 ± 7.65, 107.10 ± 10.01, 109.97 ± 9.20, 105.61 ± 9.27 and 129.01 ± 9.94 mm, respectively. Mean tumour volume was 37.06 ± 44.08 cc; mean prostate volume was 42.07 ± 17.49 cc. The univariate analysis of the variables showed a correlation between conversion and BMI and minimum ilio-iliac and coccyx-pubis diameters (p = 0.004, 0.047, 0.046). In the multivariate analysis, the only independent predictive factor for conversion was the BMI (p = 0.004).No correlation was found between conversion and sex, age, tumour volume or the rest of pelvic diameters.
CONCLUSION: BMI is an independent factor for conversion in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24651959     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-014-1851-9

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


  25 in total

Review 1.  Robotic vs. laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  S R Markar; A P Karthikesalingam; M E Hagen; M Talamini; S Horgan; O J Wagner
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.547

Review 2.  Minimally invasive colorectal resection outcomes: short-term comparison with open procedures.

Authors:  J Kay Noel; Kyle Fahrbach; Rhonda Estok; Catherine Cella; Diana Frame; Heather Linz; Robert R Cima; Eric J Dozois; Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-12-12       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 3.  Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer: a metaanalysis of oncologic outcomes.

Authors:  Timothy D Jackson; Gilaad G Kaplan; Goffredo Arena; John H Page; Selwyn O Rogers
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 4.  Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Elena Ortiz-Oshiro; Iris Sánchez-Egido; Jesús Moreno-Sierra; Cristina Fernández Pérez; Jesús Sánchez Díaz; Jesús Álvarez Fernández-Represa
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 2.547

5.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

6.  [Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection].

Authors:  Rosa M Jiménez Rodríguez; José M Díaz Pavón; Fernando de La Portilla de Juan; Emilio Prendes Sillero; Jean Marie Hisnard Cadet Dussort; Javier Padillo
Journal:  Cir Esp       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 1.653

7.  Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yongzhi Yang; Feng Wang; Peng Zhang; Chenzhang Shi; Yang Zou; Huanlong Qin; Yanlei Ma
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Impact of conversion on short and long-term outcome in laparoscopic resection of curable colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ian White; Ron Greenberg; Refael Itah; Roy Inbar; Shlomo Schneebaum; Shmuel Avital
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2011 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.