Jin Cheon Kim1, Jong Lyul Lee2, Abdulrahman Muaod Alotaibi2, Yong Sik Yoon2, Chan Wook Kim2, In Ja Park2. 1. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine and Institute of Innovative Cancer Research, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, 88, Olympic-ro-43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. jckim@amc.seoul.kr. 2. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine and Institute of Innovative Cancer Research, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, 88, Olympic-ro-43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Few investigations of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection (ISR) are presently available to support this procedure as a safe and efficient procedure. We aimed to evaluate the utility of robot-assisted ISR by comparison between ISR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) using both robot-assisted and open approaches. METHODS: The 558 patients with lower rectal cancer (LRC) who underwent curative operation was enrolled between July 2010 and June 2015 to perform either by robot-assisted (ISR vs. APR = 310 vs. 34) or open approaches (144 vs. 70). Perioperative and functional outcomes including urogenital and anorectal dysfunctions were measured. Recurrence and survival were examined in 216 patients in which >3 years had elapsed after the operation. RESULTS: The robot-assisted approach was the most significant parameter to determine ISR achievement among potent parameters (OR = 3.467, 95% CI = 2.095-5.738, p < 0.001). Early surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open ISR group (16 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.01). The voiding and male sexual dysfunctions were significantly more frequent in the open ISR (p < 0.05). The fecal incontinence and lifestyle alteration score was greater in the open ISR than in the robot-assisted ISR at 12 and 24 months, respectively (p < 0.05). However, the 3-year cumulative rates of local recurrence and survival did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The current procedure of robot-assisted ISR replaced a significant portion of APR to achieve successful SSO via mostly transabdominal approach and double-stapled anastomosis. The robot-assisted ISR with minimal invasiveness might be a help to reduce anorectal and urogenital dysfunctions.
PURPOSE: Few investigations of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection (ISR) are presently available to support this procedure as a safe and efficient procedure. We aimed to evaluate the utility of robot-assisted ISR by comparison between ISR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) using both robot-assisted and open approaches. METHODS: The 558 patients with lower rectal cancer (LRC) who underwent curative operation was enrolled between July 2010 and June 2015 to perform either by robot-assisted (ISR vs. APR = 310 vs. 34) or open approaches (144 vs. 70). Perioperative and functional outcomes including urogenital and anorectal dysfunctions were measured. Recurrence and survival were examined in 216 patients in which >3 years had elapsed after the operation. RESULTS: The robot-assisted approach was the most significant parameter to determine ISR achievement among potent parameters (OR = 3.467, 95% CI = 2.095-5.738, p < 0.001). Early surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open ISR group (16 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.01). The voiding and male sexual dysfunctions were significantly more frequent in the open ISR (p < 0.05). The fecal incontinence and lifestyle alteration score was greater in the open ISR than in the robot-assisted ISR at 12 and 24 months, respectively (p < 0.05). However, the 3-year cumulative rates of local recurrence and survival did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The current procedure of robot-assisted ISR replaced a significant portion of APR to achieve successful SSO via mostly transabdominal approach and double-stapled anastomosis. The robot-assisted ISR with minimal invasiveness might be a help to reduce anorectal and urogenital dysfunctions.
Authors: Rocco Ricciardi; Patricia L Roberts; Thomas E Read; Nancy N Baxter; Peter W Marcello; David J Schoetz Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Martin Loos; Philipp Quentmeier; Tibor Schuster; Ulrich Nitsche; Ralf Gertler; Andreas Keerl; Thomas Kocher; Helmut Friess; Robert Rosenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 5.344