Background: Robotic technique has been proposed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. In this study, we aimed at determining whether robotic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-sided colon cancer can be safe and effective as conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLRH). Materials and Methods: Between February 2015 and September 2017, patients undergoing robotic right CME and CLRH with curative intent for right-sided colon cancer were included. Patient characteristics, short-term and histopathological outcomes were compared between the groups. Results: Ninety-six patients (robotic, n = 35) were included in this study. The operative time (286 ± 77 versus 132 ± 40 minutes, P = .0001) was significantly longer in the robotic group. There were no conversions in either group. No significant differences existed between the groups regarding the mean estimated blood loss, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay (6 ± 3 versus 6 ± 3 days, P = .64), and follow-up times (robotic 15 ± 8 versus laparoscopic 16 ± 10 months P = .11). Overall complication rates (n = 10 [29%] versus n = 15 [25%], P = .67) were similar. In the robotic group, vascular injury occurred in 2 patients, and both were repaired robotically. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher (41 ± 12 versus 33 ± 10, P = .04) and length between the vascular tie and colonic wall was longer (13 ± 3.5 versus 11 ± 3, P = .02) in the robotic group. Conclusion: Although robotic right CME seems equally safe to CLRH in terms of short-term morbidity, future prospective randomized trials are needed to define its role for treatment of right colectomy.
Background: Robotic technique has been proposed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. In this study, we aimed at determining whether robotic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-sided colon cancer can be safe and effective as conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLRH). Materials and Methods: Between February 2015 and September 2017, patients undergoing robotic right CME and CLRH with curative intent for right-sided colon cancer were included. Patient characteristics, short-term and histopathological outcomes were compared between the groups. Results: Ninety-six patients (robotic, n = 35) were included in this study. The operative time (286 ± 77 versus 132 ± 40 minutes, P = .0001) was significantly longer in the robotic group. There were no conversions in either group. No significant differences existed between the groups regarding the mean estimated blood loss, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay (6 ± 3 versus 6 ± 3 days, P = .64), and follow-up times (robotic 15 ± 8 versus laparoscopic 16 ± 10 months P = .11). Overall complication rates (n = 10 [29%] versus n = 15 [25%], P = .67) were similar. In the robotic group, vascular injury occurred in 2 patients, and both were repaired robotically. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher (41 ± 12 versus 33 ± 10, P = .04) and length between the vascular tie and colonic wall was longer (13 ± 3.5 versus 11 ± 3, P = .02) in the robotic group. Conclusion: Although robotic right CME seems equally safe to CLRH in terms of short-term morbidity, future prospective randomized trials are needed to define its role for treatment of right colectomy.
Entities:
Keywords:
colon cancer; complete mesocolic excision; laparoscopic right hemicolectomy; morbidity; robotic surgery
Authors: Tamara Díaz-Vico; María Fernández-Hevia; Aida Suárez-Sánchez; Carmen García-Gutiérrez; Luka Mihic-Góngora; Daniel Fernández-Martínez; José Antonio Álvarez-Pérez; Jorge Luis Otero-Díez; José Electo Granero-Trancón; Luis Joaquín García-Flórez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: V Ozben; C de Muijnck; B Sengun; S Zenger; O Agcaoglu; E Balik; E Aytac; I A Bilgin; B Baca; I Hamzaoglu; T Karahasanoglu; D Bugra Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Giuseppe S Sica; Danilo Vinci; Leandro Siragusa; Bruno Sensi; Andrea M Guida; Vittoria Bellato; Álvaro García-Granero; Gianluca Pellino Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: G Anania; R J Davies; F Bagolini; N Vettoretto; J Randolph; R Cirocchi; A Donini Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 3.781