Literature DB >> 24913254

A comparison of the technical and oncologic validity between robot-assisted and conventional open abdominoperineal resection.

Jin C Kim1, Jae Y Kwak, Yong S Yoon, In J Park, Chan W Kim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was to ascertain whether a robot-assisted (RA) approach to APR might facilitate a cylindrical APR by enabling a deeper pelvic dissection during an abdominal approach, concurrently comparing the feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes.
METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive patients with lower rectal cancer who had undergone curative APR (21 RA vs. 27 open) were prospectively enrolled. The short-term operative outcomes and oncologic feasibility were evaluated and compared. A levator muscle excision was performed concomitantly with the abdominal procedure in the RA group and with the perineal procedure in the open group.
RESULTS: No patients in the RA group experienced intraoperative perforation or required conversion to open APR. Overall, a cylindrical APR was performed in 72 % of patients, and subtotal excision of the levator muscle, i.e., either one or both sides of the puborectalis and pubococcygeus muscles, was more likely in the RA group (P = 0.019). A positive CRM was exclusively identified in four open APR patients. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was greater in the RA group (20 vs. 16, P = 0.035). There was no difference in perineal morbidity between the two groups (P = 0.445).
CONCLUSIONS: The RA approach facilitates an efficient excision in the pelvic region than open APR during the abdominal procedure. The RA approach also demonstrated a trend toward improved oncologic outcomes with equivalent postoperative morbidities than with the open approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24913254     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-014-1916-9

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


  23 in total

1.  Primary perineal wound closure after preoperative radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection has a high incidence of wound failure.

Authors:  Kelli M Bullard; Judith L Trudel; Nancy N Baxter; David A Rothenberger
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.585

2.  Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection.

Authors:  Iris D Nagtegaal; Cornelius J H van de Velde; Corrie A M Marijnen; Jan H J M van Krieken; Philip Quirke
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-12-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Robotic surgery: colon and rectum.

Authors:  Seong Kyu Baek; Joseph C Carmichael; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.360

4.  A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery.

Authors:  Jeong Yeon Kim; Nam-Kyu Kim; Kang Young Lee; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Jang Hwan Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Multicentre study of circumferential margin positivity and outcomes following abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer.

Authors:  R P Kennelly; A C Rogers; D C Winter
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 6.  Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy.

Authors:  Jørn Pachler; Peer Wille-Jørgensen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-12-12

7.  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 8.  Urinary and sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment.

Authors:  Marilyne M Lange; Cornelis J H van de Velde
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Robotic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection with transabdominal levator transection.

Authors:  Slawomir J Marecik; Marek Zawadzki; Ashwin L Desouza; John J Park; Herand Abcarian; Leela M Prasad
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  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

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of transabdominal levator division during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER).

Authors:  D L H Baird; C Simillis; C Kontovounisios; Q Sheng; S Nikolaou; W L Law; S Rasheed; P P Tekkis
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 3.781

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.