Literature DB >> 30191369

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan.

Tomohiro Yamaguchi1,2, Yusuke Kinugasa3,4, Akio Shiomi1, Hiroyasu Kagawa1, Yushi Yamakawa1, Akinobu Furuatni1, Shoichi Manabe1, Yusuke Yamaoka1, Hitoshi Hino1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Scientific evidence supporting robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remains inconclusive because most previous reports were retrospective case series or case-control studies, with few reports focusing on long-term oncological outcomes with a large volume of patients. The aim of this study was to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of a large number of consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RALS in a single high-volume center.
METHODS: The records of 551 consecutive patients who underwent RALS for rectal adenocarcinoma between December 2011 and March 2017 were examined to reveal the short-term outcomes. The oncological outcomes of the 204 patients who underwent surgery between December 2011 and March 2014 were evaluated.
RESULTS: Most patients had tumors located in the lower or mid-rectum (86.0%). Only 7.6% of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed for 191 patients (34.7%). The median operative time was 257 min, median blood loss was 10 mL, and no transfusions were needed. No conversion to open surgery was necessary. Eighteen patients (3.3%) had Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Six patients (1.1%) had positive resection margins. The mean follow-up duration of the 204 patients was 43.6 ± 9.8 (months). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 100%/100%/100%/not reached, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 93.6%/75.0%/77.6%/ not reached, respectively. The rate of local recurrence was 0.5%.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that RALS is technically feasible for rectal cancer and has good short- and long-term outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conventional laparoscopic surgery; Long-term outcome; Rectal cancer; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery; Short-term outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30191369     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-018-3153-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  32 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center.

Authors:  Tomohiro Yamaguchi; Yusuke Kinugasa; Akio Shiomi; Hiroyuki Tomioka; Hiroyasu Kagawa; Yushi Yamakawa
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery.

Authors:  Jeong Yeon Kim; Nam-Kyu Kim; Kang Young Lee; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Jang Hwan Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  [Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection].

Authors:  Rosa M Jiménez Rodríguez; José M Díaz Pavón; Fernando de La Portilla de Juan; Emilio Prendes Sillero; Jean Marie Hisnard Cadet Dussort; Javier Padillo
Journal:  Cir Esp       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 1.653

4.  Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Analysis of a Prospective Database.

Authors:  Tarik Sammour; Songphol Malakorn; Brian K Bednarski; Harmeet Kaur; Ui Sup Shin; Craig Messick; Yi-Qian Nancy You; George J Chang
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 12.969

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.  Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for locally advanced low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Tomohiro Yamaguchi; Yusuke Kinugasa; Akio Shiomi; Hiroyasu Kagawa; Yushi Yamakawa; Akinobu Furutani; Shoichi Manabe; Yusuke Yamaoka; Hitoshi Hino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 4.584

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.  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Low Anterior Resection: Equivalent Survival in a National Analysis of 14,033 Patients With Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Zhifei Sun; Jina Kim; Mohamed A Adam; Daniel P Nussbaum; Paul J Speicher; Christopher R Mantyh; John Migaly
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  David Jayne; Alessio Pigazzi; Helen Marshall; Julie Croft; Neil Corrigan; Joanne Copeland; Phil Quirke; Nick West; Tero Rautio; Niels Thomassen; Henry Tilney; Mark Gudgeon; Paolo Pietro Bianchi; Richard Edlin; Claire Hulme; Julia Brown
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2016 for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Toshiaki Watanabe; Kei Muro; Yoichi Ajioka; Yojiro Hashiguchi; Yoshinori Ito; Yutaka Saito; Tetsuya Hamaguchi; Hideyuki Ishida; Megumi Ishiguro; Soichiro Ishihara; Yukihide Kanemitsu; Hiroshi Kawano; Yusuke Kinugasa; Norihiro Kokudo; Keiko Murofushi; Takako Nakajima; Shiro Oka; Yoshiharu Sakai; Akihito Tsuji; Keisuke Uehara; Hideki Ueno; Kentaro Yamazaki; Masahiro Yoshida; Takayuki Yoshino; Narikazu Boku; Takahiro Fujimori; Michio Itabashi; Nobuo Koinuma; Takayuki Morita; Genichi Nishimura; Yuh Sakata; Yasuhiro Shimada; Keiichi Takahashi; Shinji Tanaka; Osamu Tsuruta; Toshiharu Yamaguchi; Naohiko Yamaguchi; Toshiaki Tanaka; Kenjiro Kotake; Kenichi Sugihara
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 3.402

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Robotic-assisted Surgery: Expanding Indication to Colon Cancer in Japan.

Authors:  Shinichi Yamauchi; Marie Hanaoka; Noriko Iwata; Taiki Masuda; Masanori Tokunaga; Yusuke Kinugasa
Journal:  J Anus Rectum Colon       Date:  2022-04-27

2.  How to Establish the Bipolar Forceps Dissection Method in Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair.

Authors:  Takuya Saito; Yasuyuki Fukami; Shunichiro Komatsu; Kenitiro Kaneko; Tsuyoshi Sano
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2021-12-14

3.  Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan.

Authors:  T Matsuyama; H Endo; H Yamamoto; I Takemasa; K Uehara; T Hanai; H Miyata; T Kimura; H Hasegawa; Y Kakeji; M Inomata; Y Kitagawa; Y Kinugasa
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-09-06

4.  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

5.  Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Tadahiro Kojima; Hitoshi Hino; Akio Shiomi; Hiroyasu Kagawa; Yusuke Yamaoka; Shoichi Manabe; Shunichiro Kato; Marie Hanaoka
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2022-03-15
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.