Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes
Purpose The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes and surgical quality of robot-assisted (RAP) and laparoscopic (LAP) total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low rectal cancer. Methods From December 2007 to June 2009, 41 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent TM...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of surgical oncology 2010-12, Vol.17 (12), p.3195-3202 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 3202 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | 3195 |
| container_title | Annals of surgical oncology |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Park, Jun Seok Choi, Gyu-Seog Lim, Kyoung Hoon Jang, You Seok Jun, Soo Han |
| description | Purpose
The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes and surgical quality of robot-assisted (RAP) and laparoscopic (LAP) total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low rectal cancer.
Methods
From December 2007 to June 2009, 41 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent TME by robot-assisted procedures. The lowest tumor margins were below peritoneal reflection and 1.0–8.0 cm above the anal verge. These patients were matched 1:2 by age, gender, body mass index, date of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and tumor stage, with 82 patients who underwent conventional LAP. Macroscopic quality of the specimens and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared.
Results
Mean operation time was 168.0 ± 49.3 min for LAP group and 231.9 ± 61.4 min for RAP group (
P
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_815960235</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2202338061</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-58313d3cb1830176b0c2c838bf0665f60a6a64ca911fde28490c72e57811995b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9P3DAQxa0KVCj0A_RSWVx6MszYsdfhtlrRFmkREtBz5HgdCErWqSeh2m9fL0uphMRp_Oc3z-P3GPuCcIqy0GeEUKhCAIJANFLoD-wQdT4pjMW9vAZjRSmNPmCfiB4BcKZAf2QHErQtC2UO2XAT6zi2XsyJWhrDij-FRBPxpRtciuTj0Hp-O6X7kDa8iYkv4x9-E_zoOr5wax_Sea4UxJUb_UPun69dt8laPDb89iGmUdyF1PPrafSxD3TM9hvXUfj8Uo_Yr-8Xd4ufYnn943IxXwqf5xqFtgrVSvkarcpjmxq89FbZugFjdGPAGWcK70rEZhWkLUrwMxn0zCKWpa7VEfu20x1S_D0FGqu-JR-6zq1DnKiyqEsDUulMnrwhH-OU8i-eIWmVgjJDuIN8NoVSaKohtb1Lmwqh2oZR7cKoYLvPYVRb4a8vwlPdh9Vrxz_3MyB3AOWrdXb4_8vvq_4FDOaTcw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>815283309</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Park, Jun Seok ; Choi, Gyu-Seog ; Lim, Kyoung Hoon ; Jang, You Seok ; Jun, Soo Han</creator><creatorcontrib>Park, Jun Seok ; Choi, Gyu-Seog ; Lim, Kyoung Hoon ; Jang, You Seok ; Jun, Soo Han</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes and surgical quality of robot-assisted (RAP) and laparoscopic (LAP) total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low rectal cancer.
Methods
From December 2007 to June 2009, 41 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent TME by robot-assisted procedures. The lowest tumor margins were below peritoneal reflection and 1.0–8.0 cm above the anal verge. These patients were matched 1:2 by age, gender, body mass index, date of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and tumor stage, with 82 patients who underwent conventional LAP. Macroscopic quality of the specimens and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared.
Results
Mean operation time was 168.0 ± 49.3 min for LAP group and 231.9 ± 61.4 min for RAP group (
P
< 0.001). Time to regular diet (RAP, 6.7 days vs. LAP, 6.6 days) and length of stay (RAP, 9.9 days vs. LAP, 9.4 days) were similar. The proportion of surgeries performed with the modified natural orifice techniques (totally intracorporeal procedures with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (RAP, 48.8% vs. LAP, 13.4%;
P
< 0.001). There were no between-group differences in specimen quality, including distal resection margins, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margins. The overall major complication rates were similar (RAP, 9.8% vs. LAP, 7.3%;
P
= 0.641).
Conclusions
RAP was safe and effective for patients with low rectal cancer. Furthermore, the technical advantages of robot surgical systems may allow a novel approach using hybrid natural orifice surgery.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1068-9265</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1534-4681</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20589436</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Colorectal Cancer ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; Female ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Lymphatic Metastasis ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Staging ; Oncology ; Prospective Studies ; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery ; Robotics ; Surgery ; Surgical Oncology ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Annals of surgical oncology, 2010-12, Vol.17 (12), p.3195-3202</ispartof><rights>Society of Surgical Oncology 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-58313d3cb1830176b0c2c838bf0665f60a6a64ca911fde28490c72e57811995b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-58313d3cb1830176b0c2c838bf0665f60a6a64ca911fde28490c72e57811995b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20589436$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Park, Jun Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Gyu-Seog</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lim, Kyoung Hoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jang, You Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jun, Soo Han</creatorcontrib><title>Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes</title><title>Annals of surgical oncology</title><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><description>Purpose
The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes and surgical quality of robot-assisted (RAP) and laparoscopic (LAP) total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low rectal cancer.
Methods
From December 2007 to June 2009, 41 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent TME by robot-assisted procedures. The lowest tumor margins were below peritoneal reflection and 1.0–8.0 cm above the anal verge. These patients were matched 1:2 by age, gender, body mass index, date of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and tumor stage, with 82 patients who underwent conventional LAP. Macroscopic quality of the specimens and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared.
Results
Mean operation time was 168.0 ± 49.3 min for LAP group and 231.9 ± 61.4 min for RAP group (
P
< 0.001). Time to regular diet (RAP, 6.7 days vs. LAP, 6.6 days) and length of stay (RAP, 9.9 days vs. LAP, 9.4 days) were similar. The proportion of surgeries performed with the modified natural orifice techniques (totally intracorporeal procedures with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (RAP, 48.8% vs. LAP, 13.4%;
P
< 0.001). There were no between-group differences in specimen quality, including distal resection margins, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margins. The overall major complication rates were similar (RAP, 9.8% vs. LAP, 7.3%;
P
= 0.641).
Conclusions
RAP was safe and effective for patients with low rectal cancer. Furthermore, the technical advantages of robot surgical systems may allow a novel approach using hybrid natural orifice surgery.</description><subject>Colorectal Cancer</subject><subject>Digestive System Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Lymphatic Metastasis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1068-9265</issn><issn>1534-4681</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU9P3DAQxa0KVCj0A_RSWVx6MszYsdfhtlrRFmkREtBz5HgdCErWqSeh2m9fL0uphMRp_Oc3z-P3GPuCcIqy0GeEUKhCAIJANFLoD-wQdT4pjMW9vAZjRSmNPmCfiB4BcKZAf2QHErQtC2UO2XAT6zi2XsyJWhrDij-FRBPxpRtciuTj0Hp-O6X7kDa8iYkv4x9-E_zoOr5wax_Sea4UxJUb_UPun69dt8laPDb89iGmUdyF1PPrafSxD3TM9hvXUfj8Uo_Yr-8Xd4ufYnn943IxXwqf5xqFtgrVSvkarcpjmxq89FbZugFjdGPAGWcK70rEZhWkLUrwMxn0zCKWpa7VEfu20x1S_D0FGqu-JR-6zq1DnKiyqEsDUulMnrwhH-OU8i-eIWmVgjJDuIN8NoVSaKohtb1Lmwqh2oZR7cKoYLvPYVRb4a8vwlPdh9Vrxz_3MyB3AOWrdXb4_8vvq_4FDOaTcw</recordid><startdate>20101201</startdate><enddate>20101201</enddate><creator>Park, Jun Seok</creator><creator>Choi, Gyu-Seog</creator><creator>Lim, Kyoung Hoon</creator><creator>Jang, You Seok</creator><creator>Jun, Soo Han</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20101201</creationdate><title>Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes</title><author>Park, Jun Seok ; Choi, Gyu-Seog ; Lim, Kyoung Hoon ; Jang, You Seok ; Jun, Soo Han</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-58313d3cb1830176b0c2c838bf0665f60a6a64ca911fde28490c72e57811995b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Colorectal Cancer</topic><topic>Digestive System Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Lymphatic Metastasis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Park, Jun Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Gyu-Seog</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lim, Kyoung Hoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jang, You Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jun, Soo Han</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Park, Jun Seok</au><au>Choi, Gyu-Seog</au><au>Lim, Kyoung Hoon</au><au>Jang, You Seok</au><au>Jun, Soo Han</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes</atitle><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle><stitle>Ann Surg Oncol</stitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><date>2010-12-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>3195</spage><epage>3202</epage><pages>3195-3202</pages><issn>1068-9265</issn><eissn>1534-4681</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes and surgical quality of robot-assisted (RAP) and laparoscopic (LAP) total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low rectal cancer.
Methods
From December 2007 to June 2009, 41 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent TME by robot-assisted procedures. The lowest tumor margins were below peritoneal reflection and 1.0–8.0 cm above the anal verge. These patients were matched 1:2 by age, gender, body mass index, date of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and tumor stage, with 82 patients who underwent conventional LAP. Macroscopic quality of the specimens and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared.
Results
Mean operation time was 168.0 ± 49.3 min for LAP group and 231.9 ± 61.4 min for RAP group (
P
< 0.001). Time to regular diet (RAP, 6.7 days vs. LAP, 6.6 days) and length of stay (RAP, 9.9 days vs. LAP, 9.4 days) were similar. The proportion of surgeries performed with the modified natural orifice techniques (totally intracorporeal procedures with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (RAP, 48.8% vs. LAP, 13.4%;
P
< 0.001). There were no between-group differences in specimen quality, including distal resection margins, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margins. The overall major complication rates were similar (RAP, 9.8% vs. LAP, 7.3%;
P
= 0.641).
Conclusions
RAP was safe and effective for patients with low rectal cancer. Furthermore, the technical advantages of robot surgical systems may allow a novel approach using hybrid natural orifice surgery.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20589436</pmid><doi>10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1068-9265 |
| ispartof | Annals of surgical oncology, 2010-12, Vol.17 (12), p.3195-3202 |
| issn | 1068-9265 1534-4681 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_815960235 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Colorectal Cancer Digestive System Surgical Procedures Female Humans Laparoscopy Lymphatic Metastasis Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neoplasm Staging Oncology Prospective Studies Rectal Neoplasms - surgery Robotics Surgery Surgical Oncology Treatment Outcome |
| title | Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T09%3A17%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Robotic-Assisted%20versus%20Laparoscopic%20Surgery%20for%20Low%20Rectal%20Cancer:%20Case-Matched%20Analysis%20of%20Short-Term%20Outcomes&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20surgical%20oncology&rft.au=Park,%20Jun%20Seok&rft.date=2010-12-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=3195&rft.epage=3202&rft.pages=3195-3202&rft.issn=1068-9265&rft.eissn=1534-4681&rft_id=info:doi/10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2202338061%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=815283309&rft_id=info:pmid/20589436&rfr_iscdi=true |