Literature DB >> 24687417

Completely abdominal intersphincteric resection for lower rectal cancer: feasibility and comparison of robot-assisted and open surgery.

Jin C Kim1, Seok-B Lim, Yong S Yoon, In J Park, Chan W Kim, Chang N Kim.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most previous studies of intersphincteric resection (ISR) adopted a two-stage procedure involving abdominal and transanal approaches. We performed completely abdominal ISR via open and a robot-assisted (RA) approaches as treatments for lower rectal cancer (LRC). The RA approach might enable deep dissection and facilitate ISR in patients with restrictive pelvic anatomy.
METHODS: A consecutive cohort of 222 LRC patients who underwent completely abdominal ISR (RA ISR, n = 108; open ISR, n = 114) was enrolled prospectively, and their short-term outcomes were evaluated.
RESULTS: In a multivariate analysis, ISR was performed more frequently in the RA than in the open group (82.6 vs. 67.9 %, p = 0.008). The number of harvested lymph nodes was >12 in both groups. A positive distal resection margin was not observed in either group, and a positive circumferential resection margin was found in one patient in the RA group. Overall morbidity did not differ between the groups. Moderate to severe sexual dysfunction occurred 2.7-fold more frequently in the open group (p = 0.023) among male patients ≤65 years. Mean Wexner's fecal incontinence scores at postoperative months 6 and 12 were greater in the open group than in the RA group (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Completely abdominal ISR may be feasible in the treatment of LRC, based on a short-term study. Furthermore, RA ISR had equivalent oncological outcomes and slightly improved functional recovery relative to open ISR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24687417     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3509-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  27 in total

1.  Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Sang Woo Lim; Jung Wook Huh; Young Jin Kim; Hyeong Rok Kim
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  The accordion severity grading system of surgical complications.

Authors:  Steven M Strasberg; David C Linehan; William G Hawkins
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems.

Authors:  C J Vaizey; E Carapeti; J A Cahill; M A Kamm
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 4.  Etiology and management of fecal incontinence.

Authors:  J M Jorge; S D Wexner
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Open versus robot-assisted sphincter-saving operations in rectal cancer patients: techniques and comparison of outcomes between groups of 100 matched patients.

Authors:  Jin C Kim; Sung S Yang; Tae Y Jang; Jae Y Kwak; Myung J Yun; Seok B Lim
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 2.547

Review 6.  Laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  S Trastulli; R Cirocchi; C Listorti; D Cavaliere; N Avenia; N Gullà; G Giustozzi; F Sciannameo; G Noya; C Boselli
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.788

7.  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

Review 8.  Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  F Rondelli; P Reboldi; A Rulli; F Barberini; A Guerrisi; L Izzo; A Bolognese; P Covarelli; C Boselli; C Becattini; G Noya
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-02-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  R H van der Schatte Olivier; C D P Van't Hullenaar; J P Ruurda; I A M J Broeders
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 4.584

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
  14 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer.

Authors:  Tomohiro Yamaguchi; Yusuke Kinugasa; Akio Shiomi; Hiroyuki Tomioka; Hiroyasu Kagawa
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Outcomes of ultra-low anterior resection combined with or without intersphincteric resection in lower rectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Jin C Kim; Chang S Yu; Seok-B Lim; Chan W Kim; In J Park; Yong S Yoon
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-07-05       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Jin Cheon Kim; Chang Sik Yu; Seok-Byung Lim; In Ja Park; Chan Wook Kim; Yong Sik Yoon
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery using a propensity score analysis.

Authors:  Soichiro Ishihara; Tomomichi Kiyomatsu; Kazushige Kawai; Toshiaki Tanaka; Keisuke Hata; Shinsuke Kazama; Eiji Sunami; Hiroaki Nozawa; Toshiaki Watanabe
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review.

Authors:  Ferdinando D'Amico; Steven D Wexner; Carolynne J Vaizey; Célia Gouynou; Silvio Danese; Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 4.623

8.  Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Seon Heui Lee; Dong Hyun Kim; Sang Woo Lim
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence.

Authors:  Guixiang Liao; Yan-Bing Li; Zhihong Zhao; Xianming Li; Haijun Deng; Gang Li
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs. open abdominoperineal resection in terms of operative and initial oncological outcomes.

Authors:  Jin Cheon Kim; Jong Lyul Lee; Chan Wook Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 1.859

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.