S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer
Background In recent years, robot-assisted surgery using the da Vinci System ® has been proposed as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted rectal resection for cancer. Meth...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 2011-01, Vol.25 (1), p.240-248 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 248 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 240 |
| container_title | Surgical endoscopy |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Park, Jun Seok Choi, Gyu-Seog Lim, Kyoung Hoon Jang, You Seok Jun, Soo Han |
| description | Background
In recent years, robot-assisted surgery using the da Vinci System
®
has been proposed as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted rectal resection for cancer.
Methods
Two hundred sixty-three patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection between 2007 and 2009 were included. Patients were classified into an open surgery group (OS,
n
= 88), a laparoscopic surgery group (LAP,
n
= 123), and a robot-assisted group (RAP,
n
= 52). Data analyzed include operating time, length of recovery, methods of specimen extraction, quality of total mesorectal excision, and morbidity.
Results
The mean operating time was 233.8 ± 59.2 min for the OS group, 158.1 ± 49.2 min for the LAP group, and 232.6 ± 52.4 min for the RAP group (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00464-010-1166-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_820788241</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2218159011</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-4d7ce60574475ace3ffa2251b0f449599b1abc77b4183df06b0515d7bdc11aa13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1TAQhS0EopfCA7BBFlLFpi4zjh0n7FDFn1SpC2AdTRwHUiV2sJ1F-_T15V6ohMRqZM03Z8bnMPYS4QIBzNsEoGolAEEg1rW4e8R2qCoppMTmMdtBW4GQplUn7FlKN1DwFvVTdiJBa1nVZsfGr6DlO07chmWlOKXgeRh5DH3IglKaUnbDOZ-pNEOyYZ3sOSc_8LA6z9MWf7h4yyfP80_Hc3SUF-fzbwlnM83ckrcuPmdPRpqTe3Gsp-z7xw_fLj-Lq-tPXy7fXwmr6joLNRjratBGKaPJumocSUqNPYxKtbpte6TeGtMrbKphhLoHjXow_WARibA6ZW8OumsMvzaXcrdMybp5Ju_ClrpGgmkaqfbk63_Im7BFX47rGmxMI6WRBcIDZMvnU3Rjt8ZpoXjbIXT7CLpDBB3s3yWC7q7MvDoKb_3ihr8TfzwvwNkRoGRpHmNxaEoPXNUgGqwLJw9cKi1ffH648P_b7wGl4p3A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>818782272</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature 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>Background
In recent years, robot-assisted surgery using the da Vinci System
®
has been proposed as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted rectal resection for cancer.
Methods
Two hundred sixty-three patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection between 2007 and 2009 were included. Patients were classified into an open surgery group (OS,
n
= 88), a laparoscopic surgery group (LAP,
n
= 123), and a robot-assisted group (RAP,
n
= 52). Data analyzed include operating time, length of recovery, methods of specimen extraction, quality of total mesorectal excision, and morbidity.
Results
The mean operating time was 233.8 ± 59.2 min for the OS group, 158.1 ± 49.2 min for the LAP group, and 232.6 ± 52.4 min for the RAP group (
p
< 0.001). Patients from the LAP and RAP groups recovered significantly faster than did those from the OS group (
p
< 0.05). The proportion of operations performed through a natural orifice (intracorporeal anastomosis with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (
p
< 0.001). The specimen quality—with a distal resection margin, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margin—did not differ among the three groups. The overall complication rates were 20.5, 12.2, and 19.2% in the OS, LAP, and RAP groups, respectively (
p
= 0.229).
Conclusions
RAP and LAP reproduce the equivalent short-term results of standard OS while providing the advantages of minimal access. For the experienced laparoscopic colorectal oncologist, use of the da Vinci robot resulted in no significant short-term clinical benefit over the conventional laparoscopic approach.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2218</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1166-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20552367</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SUREEX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Aged ; Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology ; Applied sciences ; Biological and medical sciences ; Colectomy - methods ; Colorectal cancer ; Computer science; control theory; systems ; Control theory. Systems ; Dissection ; Endoscopy ; Exact sciences and technology ; Female ; Gastroenterology ; Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen ; Gynecology ; Hepatology ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Laparotomy - methods ; Length of Stay - statistics & numerical data ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Metastasis ; Middle Aged ; Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods ; Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy ; Pain, Postoperative - epidemiology ; Patients rights ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Proctology ; Prospective Studies ; Radiation therapy ; Recovery of Function ; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic surgery ; Robotics ; Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus ; Surgeons ; Surgery ; Surgical anastomosis ; Treatment Outcome ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Surgical endoscopy, 2011-01, Vol.25 (1), p.240-248</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-4d7ce60574475ace3ffa2251b0f449599b1abc77b4183df06b0515d7bdc11aa13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-4d7ce60574475ace3ffa2251b0f449599b1abc77b4183df06b0515d7bdc11aa13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-010-1166-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-010-1166-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=23811716$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20552367$$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>S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer</title><title>Surgical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><description>Background
In recent years, robot-assisted surgery using the da Vinci System
®
has been proposed as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted rectal resection for cancer.
Methods
Two hundred sixty-three patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection between 2007 and 2009 were included. Patients were classified into an open surgery group (OS,
n
= 88), a laparoscopic surgery group (LAP,
n
= 123), and a robot-assisted group (RAP,
n
= 52). Data analyzed include operating time, length of recovery, methods of specimen extraction, quality of total mesorectal excision, and morbidity.
Results
The mean operating time was 233.8 ± 59.2 min for the OS group, 158.1 ± 49.2 min for the LAP group, and 232.6 ± 52.4 min for the RAP group (
p
< 0.001). Patients from the LAP and RAP groups recovered significantly faster than did those from the OS group (
p
< 0.05). The proportion of operations performed through a natural orifice (intracorporeal anastomosis with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (
p
< 0.001). The specimen quality—with a distal resection margin, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margin—did not differ among the three groups. The overall complication rates were 20.5, 12.2, and 19.2% in the OS, LAP, and RAP groups, respectively (
p
= 0.229).
Conclusions
RAP and LAP reproduce the equivalent short-term results of standard OS while providing the advantages of minimal access. For the experienced laparoscopic colorectal oncologist, use of the da Vinci robot resulted in no significant short-term clinical benefit over the conventional laparoscopic approach.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</subject><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Colectomy - methods</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Computer science; control theory; systems</subject><subject>Control theory. Systems</subject><subject>Dissection</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Laparotomy - methods</subject><subject>Length of Stay - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - epidemiology</subject><subject>Patients rights</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Recovery of Function</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Robotic surgery</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical anastomosis</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0930-2794</issn><issn>1432-2218</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1TAQhS0EopfCA7BBFlLFpi4zjh0n7FDFn1SpC2AdTRwHUiV2sJ1F-_T15V6ohMRqZM03Z8bnMPYS4QIBzNsEoGolAEEg1rW4e8R2qCoppMTmMdtBW4GQplUn7FlKN1DwFvVTdiJBa1nVZsfGr6DlO07chmWlOKXgeRh5DH3IglKaUnbDOZ-pNEOyYZ3sOSc_8LA6z9MWf7h4yyfP80_Hc3SUF-fzbwlnM83ckrcuPmdPRpqTe3Gsp-z7xw_fLj-Lq-tPXy7fXwmr6joLNRjratBGKaPJumocSUqNPYxKtbpte6TeGtMrbKphhLoHjXow_WARibA6ZW8OumsMvzaXcrdMybp5Ju_ClrpGgmkaqfbk63_Im7BFX47rGmxMI6WRBcIDZMvnU3Rjt8ZpoXjbIXT7CLpDBB3s3yWC7q7MvDoKb_3ihr8TfzwvwNkRoGRpHmNxaEoPXNUgGqwLJw9cKi1ffH648P_b7wGl4p3A</recordid><startdate>20110101</startdate><enddate>20110101</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</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>7RV</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>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110101</creationdate><title>S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer</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-c466t-4d7ce60574475ace3ffa2251b0f449599b1abc77b4183df06b0515d7bdc11aa13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</topic><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Colectomy - methods</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Computer science; control theory; systems</topic><topic>Control theory. Systems</topic><topic>Dissection</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Laparotomy - methods</topic><topic>Length of Stay - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - epidemiology</topic><topic>Patients rights</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Recovery of Function</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Robotic surgery</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical anastomosis</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Tumors</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>Pascal-Francis</collection><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>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</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>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</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>Surgical endoscopy</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>S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer</atitle><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle><stitle>Surg Endosc</stitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><date>2011-01-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>240</spage><epage>248</epage><pages>240-248</pages><issn>0930-2794</issn><eissn>1432-2218</eissn><coden>SUREEX</coden><abstract>Background
In recent years, robot-assisted surgery using the da Vinci System
®
has been proposed as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted rectal resection for cancer.
Methods
Two hundred sixty-three patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection between 2007 and 2009 were included. Patients were classified into an open surgery group (OS,
n
= 88), a laparoscopic surgery group (LAP,
n
= 123), and a robot-assisted group (RAP,
n
= 52). Data analyzed include operating time, length of recovery, methods of specimen extraction, quality of total mesorectal excision, and morbidity.
Results
The mean operating time was 233.8 ± 59.2 min for the OS group, 158.1 ± 49.2 min for the LAP group, and 232.6 ± 52.4 min for the RAP group (
p
< 0.001). Patients from the LAP and RAP groups recovered significantly faster than did those from the OS group (
p
< 0.05). The proportion of operations performed through a natural orifice (intracorporeal anastomosis with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (
p
< 0.001). The specimen quality—with a distal resection margin, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margin—did not differ among the three groups. The overall complication rates were 20.5, 12.2, and 19.2% in the OS, LAP, and RAP groups, respectively (
p
= 0.229).
Conclusions
RAP and LAP reproduce the equivalent short-term results of standard OS while providing the advantages of minimal access. For the experienced laparoscopic colorectal oncologist, use of the da Vinci robot resulted in no significant short-term clinical benefit over the conventional laparoscopic approach.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20552367</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00464-010-1166-z</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0930-2794 |
| ispartof | Surgical endoscopy, 2011-01, Vol.25 (1), p.240-248 |
| issn | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_820788241 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals |
| subjects | Abdominal Surgery Aged Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology Applied sciences Biological and medical sciences Colectomy - methods Colorectal cancer Computer science control theory systems Control theory. Systems Dissection Endoscopy Exact sciences and technology Female Gastroenterology Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen Gynecology Hepatology Humans Laparoscopy Laparoscopy - methods Laparotomy - methods Length of Stay - statistics & numerical data Male Medical sciences Medicine Medicine & Public Health Metastasis Middle Aged Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy Pain, Postoperative - epidemiology Patients rights Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Proctology Prospective Studies Radiation therapy Recovery of Function Rectal Neoplasms - surgery Retrospective Studies Robotic surgery Robotics Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus Surgeons Surgery Surgical anastomosis Treatment Outcome Tumors |
| title | S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T17%3A14%3A11IST&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=S052:%20a%20comparison%20of%20robot-assisted,%20laparoscopic,%20and%20open%20surgery%20in%20the%20treatment%20of%20rectal%20cancer&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20endoscopy&rft.au=Park,%20Jun%20Seok&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=240&rft.epage=248&rft.pages=240-248&rft.issn=0930-2794&rft.eissn=1432-2218&rft.coden=SUREEX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00464-010-1166-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2218159011%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=818782272&rft_id=info:pmid/20552367&rfr_iscdi=true |