Literature DB >> 27001868

Robot-assisted low anterior resection in fifty-three consecutive patients: an Indian experience.

R D Kenawadekar1, R Z Dhange1, A Pandit1, M S Bandawar1, S Joshi1, G Agarwal1, A P Jagtap1, S Puntambekar2.   

Abstract

From December 2005 to December 2009, we performed 150 laparoscopic colorectal procedures. Based on this experience, we started offering robot-assisted colorectal surgery from December 2009. This study is a prospective evaluation of consecutive patients in order to study the technical feasibility and oncological outcome of robot-assisted low anterior resection. This investigation was conducted at a single minimal access surgery institute. Between December 2009 and December 2011, 53 consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma underwent a robot-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) or ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME), using the standard da Vinci 'S' model. Patient demographics, mean operative time, mean postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, days to first flatus, resumption of oral feeds, urinary incontinence, and sexual dysfunction were studied. Surgical and pathological outcomes such as quality of TME, free circumferential margins, and number of lymph nodes dissected were also evaluated. Robot docking and undocking times were noted. Of the 53 patients, 41 were men and 12 were women. Their mean age was 66.7 years (range 37-90 years). The ASA grades were distributed as follows: ASA I 15 (28.3 %), ASA II 25 (47.16 %), ASA III 12 (22.64 %), ASA IV 1 (1.88 %). The mean operative time was 180 min (150-230 min) and the mean blood loss was 101.6 ml (50-300 ml). The robot docking time was 10 min (15-25 min) and the undocking time was 5 min (3-10 min). The mean hospital stay was 8 days (7-15 days). None of the patients was converted to either laparoscopic or open procedure. The longitudinal and circumferential margins were negative in all patients. Histopathological reports of 45 patients showed complete TME while 8 patients showed nearly complete TME. No repositioning of the robot was needed for splenic flexure mobilization, thus decreasing the operative time. Along with TME, even the splenic flexure mobilization was achieved through the same robotic ports without undocking the robot. Robot-assisted LAR and ULAR is technically feasible, and a complete TME is possible.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Rectal cancer; Robot-assisted low anterior resection; Total mesorectal excision

Year:  2012        PMID: 27001868     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-012-0383-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  29 in total

1.  Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease.

Authors:  Philip A Weber; Stephen Merola; Annette Wasielewski; Garth H Ballantyne
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.585

2.  Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Conor P Delaney; A Craig Lynch; Anthony J Senagore; Victor W Fazio
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  The role of telementoring and telerobotic assistance in the provision of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in rural areas.

Authors:  H Sebajang; P Trudeau; A Dougall; S Hegge; C McKinley; M Anvari
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-07-03       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Does telerobotic assistance improve laparoscopic colorectal surgery?

Authors:  Guido Woeste; W O Bechstein; C Wullstein
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Short-term outcomes after robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Minia Hellan; Casandra Anderson; Joshua D I Ellenhorn; Benjamin Paz; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-09-01       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Mark Buunen; Ruben Veldkamp; Wim C J Hop; Esther Kuhry; Johannes Jeekel; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio Lacy; Hendrik J Bonjer
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  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

8.  Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital.

Authors:  Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Andrea Coratti; Marta Angelini; Fabio Sbrana; Simone Cecconi; Tommaso Balestracci; Giuseppe Caravaglios
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2003-07

9.  Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial.

Authors:  S H Baik; Y T Ko; C M Kang; W J Lee; N K Kim; S K Sohn; H S Chi; C H Cho
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  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

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Sexual and urinary outcomes in robotic rectal surgery: review of the literature and technical considerations.

Authors:  Fabrizio Luca; Danielle K Craigg; Maheswari Senthil; Matthew J Selleck; Blake D Babcock; Mark E Reeves; Carlos A Garberoglio
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-08-17

2.  Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives.

Authors:  Jong Lyul Lee; Hassan A Alsaleem; Jin Cheon Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 1.859

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.