BACKGROUND: Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME), a novel way for minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, was shown in previous studies to be safe and effective. However, comparison with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) has drawn contradictory disputes, especially concerning operative high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare R-TME and L-TME on the rectal technical approach. METHODS: Between October 2009 and March 2013, a total of 120 consecutive rectal carcinomas, operated for sphincter-saving procedure, were enrolled. The patient population included the last 60 laparoscopic procedures and the first 60 robotic surgeries (six hybrid approaches, then 54 full robotic surgeries). There were no exclusions. RESULTS: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the R-TME and L-TME groups. Outcomes were equivalent for blood loss (200 vs. 100 mL), postoperative hospital stay (12 vs. 11 days), conversion rate (3.2 vs. 4.8 %), lymph nodes yield (15 vs. 19), no positive distal margin (0 %), positive radial margin (6.4 vs. 9.3 %), diverting ileostomy (73 vs. 58 %) and severe morbidity (28 vs. 20 %). Significant differences were found for median operative time (274 vs. 228 min; p = 0.003) and proctectomy performed via transanal approach (1.7 vs. 16.7 %; p = 0.004). The R-TME operative time curve stabilized to 245 min after the first 25 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For rectal cancer, R-TME may be as feasible and safe as L-TME in terms of technique. In our practice and for difficult cases, R-TME allows complete rectal dissection by an abdominal approach, while L-TME requires a transanal approach.
BACKGROUND: Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME), a novel way for minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, was shown in previous studies to be safe and effective. However, comparison with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) has drawn contradictory disputes, especially concerning operative high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare R-TME and L-TME on the rectal technical approach. METHODS: Between October 2009 and March 2013, a total of 120 consecutive rectal carcinomas, operated for sphincter-saving procedure, were enrolled. The patient population included the last 60 laparoscopic procedures and the first 60 robotic surgeries (six hybrid approaches, then 54 full robotic surgeries). There were no exclusions. RESULTS:Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the R-TME and L-TME groups. Outcomes were equivalent for blood loss (200 vs. 100 mL), postoperative hospital stay (12 vs. 11 days), conversion rate (3.2 vs. 4.8 %), lymph nodes yield (15 vs. 19), no positive distal margin (0 %), positive radial margin (6.4 vs. 9.3 %), diverting ileostomy (73 vs. 58 %) and severe morbidity (28 vs. 20 %). Significant differences were found for median operative time (274 vs. 228 min; p = 0.003) and proctectomy performed via transanal approach (1.7 vs. 16.7 %; p = 0.004). The R-TME operative time curve stabilized to 245 min after the first 25 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For rectal cancer, R-TME may be as feasible and safe as L-TME in terms of technique. In our practice and for difficult cases, R-TME allows complete rectal dissection by an abdominal approach, while L-TME requires a transanal approach.
Authors: E Duchalais; N Machairas; S R Kelley; R G Landmann; A Merchea; D T Colibaseanu; K L Mathis; E J Dozois; D W Larson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Nunzio Velotti; Stefania Torino; Antonietta Vozza; Giovanni Sarnelli; Giovanni Aprea; Francesco Maione; Nicola Gennarelli; Mario Musella; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: E Duchalais; N Machairas; S R Kelley; R G Landmann; A Merchea; D T Colibaseanu; K L Mathis; E J Dozois; D W Larson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.584