Literature DB >> 27011458

Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Robotic-Assisted Surgery with Traditional Laparotomy for Rectal Cancer-Indian Study.

S P Somashekhar1, K R Ashwin2, Jaka Rajashekhar1, Shabber Zaveri1.   

Abstract

Rectal cancer is one of the common cancers in India. Surgical management is the mainstay of initial treatment for majority of patients. Minimally invasive surgery has gained acceptance for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer because, compared with laparotomy, it is associated with fewer complications, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety, feasibility, technique, and outcomes (postoperative, oncological, and functional) of robotic-assisted rectal surgery in comparison with open surgery in the Indian population. A prospective randomized study was undertaken from August 2011 to December 2012. Fifty patients who presented with rectal carcinoma were randomized to either robotic arm (RA) or open arm (OA) group. Both groups were matched for clinical stage and operation type. Technique and feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery in terms of operating time, estimated blood loss, margins status, total number of lymph nodes retrieved, hospital stay, conversion to open procedure, complications, and functional outcomes were analyzed. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RA than in the OA group (310 vs 246 min, P < 0.001) but was significantly reduced in the latter part of the robotic-assisted patients compared with the initial patients. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RA compared with the OA group (165.14 vs 406.04 ml, P < 0.001). None of the patients had margin positivity. The mean distal resection margin was significantly longer in the RA than in the OA group (3.6 vs 2.4 cm, P < 0.001). A total of 100 % of patients in the RA group had complete mesorectal excision while two patients in the OA group had incomplete mesorectal excision. The average number of retrieved lymph nodes was adequate for accurate staging. The number of lymph nodes removed by robotic method is slightly higher than the open method (16.88 vs 15.20) but with no statistical significance. Conversion rate was nil. The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RA group (7.52 vs 13.24 days, P < 0.001). Postoperative and functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Robotic-assisted surgery is an emerging technique in our country. Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery is safe with low conversion rates and acceptable morbidity and is oncologically feasible.

Entities:  

Keywords:  India; Minimally invasive surgery; Rectal cancer; Robotic surgery

Year:  2013        PMID: 27011458      PMCID: PMC4775566          DOI: 10.1007/s12262-013-1003-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Surg        ISSN: 0973-9793            Impact factor:   0.656


  25 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  Robotic colorectal surgery: hype or new hope? A systematic review of robotics in colorectal surgery.

Authors:  A H Mirnezami; R Mirnezami; A K Venkatasubramaniam; K Chandrakumaran; T D Cecil; B J Moran
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.788

4.  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

5.  Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 14-20       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Full robotic left colon and rectal cancer resection: technique and early outcome.

Authors:  Fabrizio Luca; Sabine Cenciarelli; Manuela Valvo; Simonetta Pozzi; Felice Lo Faso; Davide Ravizza; Giulia Zampino; Angelica Sonzogni; Roberto Biffi
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group.

Authors:  David G Jayne; Pierre J Guillou; Helen Thorpe; Philip Quirke; Joanne Copeland; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-07-20       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Robotic general surgery: current practice, evidence, and perspective.

Authors:  M Jung; P Morel; L Buehler; N C Buchs; M E Hagen
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection for sphincter-saving surgery: pathological and short-term outcomes in a single-center analysis of 130 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Alain Valverde; Nicolas Goasguen; Olivier Oberlin; Magali Svrcek; Jean-François Fléjou; Alain Sezeur; Henri Mosnier; Rémi Houdart; Renato M Lupinacci
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Hype or Hope? (Indian Experience).

Authors:  S P Somashekhar; K R Ashwin; C Rohit Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-06-08

4.  Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Christoph Holmer; Martin E Kreis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing conventional Intuitive® procedure card recommended port placement with the modified Indian (Manipal) technique.

Authors:  S P Somashekhar; A Y Deshpande; K R Ashwin; R Gangasani; R Kumar
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2020 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.407

6.  Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Short-Term Oncological Outcomes of Initial 178 Cases.

Authors:  C Ramachandra; Pavan Sugoor; Uday Karjol; Ravi Arjunan; Syed Altaf; C Srinivas; B V Prakash; Vijay Patil
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-09-08

7.  Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Rectal Cancer: Real-World Experience over 8 Years of Multiple Institutions with High-Volume Robotic-Assisted Surgery.

Authors:  Ching-Wen Huang; Po-Li Wei; Chien-Chih Chen; Li-Jen Kuo; Jaw-Yuan Wang
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 6.575

8.  Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group's practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  S P Somashekhar; Avanish Saklani; Jagannath Dixit; Jagdish Kothari; Sandeep Nayak; O V Sudheer; Surender Dabas; Jagadishwar Goud; Venkatesh Munikrishnan; Pavan Sugoor; Prasanth Penumadu; C Ramachandra; Shilpa Mehendale; Akhil Dahiya
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-10-04       Impact factor: 5.738

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.