Alain Valverde1, Nicolas Goasguen1, Olivier Oberlin1, Magali Svrcek2,3, Jean-François Fléjou2,3, Alain Sezeur1, Henri Mosnier1, Rémi Houdart1, Renato M Lupinacci4. 1. Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint Simon, 125, rue d'Avron, 75020, Paris, France. 2. Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France. 3. University Paris VI, Paris, France. 4. Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint Simon, 125, rue d'Avron, 75020, Paris, France. rmlupinacci@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive sphincter-saving rectal resection represents a challenging procedure. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer has several advantages over conventional surgery in performing precise dissection and was proved to be safe and effective in previous studies. However, comparison between laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection has drawn contradictory results. The aim of the present study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal resections for short-term and pathological outcomes. METHODS: Between January 2013 and May 2016, we performed a total of 258 robotic surgeries, including 146 colorectal resections (56%). For this study, we included the first 65 sphincter-saving robotic resections and compared them to the last 65 consecutive laparoscopic resections. The laparoscopic group was constituted by the last 65 consecutively operated patients who matched the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the groups. Conversion rate was greater in the laparoscopic group (17 vs. 5%, p=0.044). Reoperation rate, overall and severe morbidity, and median hospital stay were similar in both the groups. Quality of mesorectal excision specimen was considered complete or near complete in 97 and 96% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively. There was no difference in the rates of negative circumferential radial margin, distal margin, and surgical success measured by composite criteria. CONCLUSION: The main finding of this study was that robotic proctectomy for sphincter-saving procedures offers similar quality of TME with a statistically significant lower rate of conversion when compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive sphincter-saving rectal resection represents a challenging procedure. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer has several advantages over conventional surgery in performing precise dissection and was proved to be safe and effective in previous studies. However, comparison between laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection has drawn contradictory results. The aim of the present study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal resections for short-term and pathological outcomes. METHODS: Between January 2013 and May 2016, we performed a total of 258 robotic surgeries, including 146 colorectal resections (56%). For this study, we included the first 65 sphincter-saving robotic resections and compared them to the last 65 consecutive laparoscopic resections. The laparoscopic group was constituted by the last 65 consecutively operated patients who matched the inclusion criteria. RESULTS:Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the groups. Conversion rate was greater in the laparoscopic group (17 vs. 5%, p=0.044). Reoperation rate, overall and severe morbidity, and median hospital stay were similar in both the groups. Quality of mesorectal excision specimen was considered complete or near complete in 97 and 96% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively. There was no difference in the rates of negative circumferential radial margin, distal margin, and surgical success measured by composite criteria. CONCLUSION: The main finding of this study was that robotic proctectomy for sphincter-saving procedures offers similar quality of TME with a statistically significant lower rate of conversion when compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.
Authors: Marta Penna; Roel Hompes; Steve Arnold; Greg Wynn; Ralph Austin; Janindra Warusavitarne; Brendan Moran; George B Hanna; Neil J Mortensen; Paris P Tekkis Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kristian K Jensen; Peter-Martin Krarup; Thomas Scheike; Lars N Jorgensen; Tommie Mynster Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-02-19 Impact factor: 4.584
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
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
Authors: Min Soo Cho; Se Jin Baek; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Seung Hyuk Baik; Kang Young Lee; Nam Kyu Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Walaa F Abdelmoaty; Christy M Dunst; Chris Neighorn; Lee L Swanstrom; Chet W Hammill Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-12-07 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: Kevin J Hancock; V Suzanne Klimberg; Omar Nunez-Lopez; Aakash H Gajjar; Guillermo Gomez; Douglas S Tyler; Laila Rashidi Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2021-02-25
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