Literature DB >> 27038996

The circumferential resection margins status: A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer.

J P de Jesus1, M Valadão2, R O de Castro Araujo1, D Cesar1, E Linhares1, A C Iglesias3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer (RC) is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach, but robotic-assisted surgery may overcome some limitations of laparoscopy in RC treatment. We compared the rate of positive circumferential margins between robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision (TME) for RC in our institution.
METHODS: Mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma patients consecutively submitted to robotic surgery were compared to laparoscopic and open approach. From our prospective database, 59 patients underwent robotic-assisted rectal surgery from 2012 to 2015 (RTME group) were compared to our historical control group comprising 200 open TME (OTME group) and 41 laparoscopic TME (LTME group) approaches from July 2008 to February 2012. Primary endpoint was to compare the rate of involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) and the mean CRM between the three groups. Secondary endpoint was to compare the mean number of resected lymph nodes between the three groups.
RESULTS: CRM involvement was demonstrated in 20 patients (15.5%) in OTME, 4 (16%) in LTME and 9 (16.4%) in the RTME (p = 0.988). The mean CRM in OTME, LTME and RTME were respectively 0.6 cm (0-2.7), 0.7 cm (0-2.0) and 0.6 cm (0-2.0) (p = 0.960). Overall mean LN harvest was 14 (0-56); 16 (0-52) in OTME, 13 (1-56) in LTME and 10 (0-45) in RTME (p = 0.156).
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that robotic TME has the same oncological short-term results when compared to the open and laparoscopic technique, and it could be safely offered for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Circumferential resection margins; Minimally invasive surgery; Rectal cancer; Robotic surgery; Total mesorectal excision

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27038996     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0748-7983            Impact factor:   4.424


  9 in total

1.  Prior experience in laparoscopic rectal surgery can minimise the learning curve for robotic rectal resections: a cumulative sum analysis.

Authors:  Manfred Odermatt; Jamil Ahmed; Sofoklis Panteleimonitis; Jim Khan; Amjad Parvaiz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Authors:  Ka Ting Ng; Azlan Kok Vui Tsia; Vanessa Yu Ling Chong
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach-report of a single-center experience.

Authors:  Heiko Aselmann; Jan-Niclas Kersebaum; Alexander Bernsmeier; Jan Henrik Beckmann; Thorben Möller; Jan Hendrik Egberts; Clemens Schafmayer; Christoph Röcken; Thomas Becker
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Impact of minimally invasive surgery on short-term outcomes after rectal resection for neoplasm within the setting of an enhanced recovery program.

Authors:  Allison N Martin; Puja Shah Berry; Charles M Friel; Traci L Hedrick
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yinyin Guo; Yichen Guo; Yanxin Luo; Xia Song; Hui Zhao; Laiyuan Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Feasibility of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer.

Authors:  Wei-Chih Su; Ching-Wen Huang; Cheng-Jen Ma; Po-Jung Chen; Hsiang-Lin Tsai; Tsung-Kun Chang; Yen-Cheng Chen; Ching-Chun Li; Yung-Sung Yeh; Jaw-Yuan Wang
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2021 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 1.407

Review 7.  Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients.

Authors:  Kamil Safiejko; Radoslaw Tarkowski; Maciej Koselak; Marcin Juchimiuk; Aleksander Tarasik; Michal Pruc; Jacek Smereka; Lukasz Szarpak
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-30       Impact factor: 6.639

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

9.  Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial.

Authors:  Katie Jones; Mohamed G Qassem; Parv Sains; Mirza K Baig; Muhammad S Sajid
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2018-11-15
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.