TME for rectal cancer: consecutive 70 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique-cumulative experience in a single centre

被引:11
作者
Megevand, J. L. [1 ]
Lillo, E. [1 ]
Amboldi, M. [1 ]
Lenisa, L. [1 ]
Ambrosi, A. [2 ]
Rusconi, A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Humanitas S Pio X Hosp, Dept Surg, Div Gen Surg, Via Nava 31, I-20159 Milan, Italy
[2] Univ Vita Salute San Raffaele, I-20132 Milan, Italy
关键词
Rectal cancer; Total mesorectal excision; Robotic surgery; Single docking; Low rectal anterior resection; TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION; LOW ANTERIOR RESECTION; OPEN COLECTOMY; COLON-CANCER; COLORECTAL-CARCINOMA; ASSISTED COLECTOMY; TERM OUTCOMES; SURGERY; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1007/s13304-019-00655-y
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
From January 2011 to December 2015, 70 consecutive patients underwent either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic surgery (RS) total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy. Data were prospectically recorded in a dedicated local database including ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results. We enrolled 70 consecutive patients, 35 treated with LS (18M, 17 F), 35 treated with RS (23M, 12 F). Median total operative time was 225min in LS group (IQR 194-255) and 252.5min for RS group (IQR 214-300). Median first flatus time was 2days for LS group (IQR 1-3) and 1day for RS group (IQR 1-2). Stool discharge time (median) was 4days for LS group (IQR 2-5) and 2days for RS group (IQR 1-3). Length of stay (median) was 8days in LS group (IQR 7-10) and 7days in RS group (IQR 5-8). It was not found any statistically significant difference between the two groups when we analyzed the number nodes harvested the postoperative complications. The 30day mortality was 0% in both two groups. The conversion rate for LS group was 23% (8/35 pts) and that for RS group was 0% (0/35). The RS may overcome technical limitations of LS. In our experience, it is a feasible and safe technique, it achieves better clinical outcomes due to the lower conversion rate compared to LS, although with higher costs.
引用
收藏
页码:331 / 338
页数:8
相关论文
共 38 条
[31]   Conversions in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer [J].
van der Pas, Martijn H. G. M. ;
Deijen, Charlotte L. ;
Abis, Gabor S. A. ;
de Lange-de Klerk, Elly S. M. ;
Haglind, Eva ;
Fuerst, Alois ;
Lacy, Antonio M. ;
Cuesta, Miguel A. ;
Bonjer, Hendrik J. .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 31 (05) :2263-2270
[32]  
Wang Y, 2016, SURG LAPARO ENDO PER, V26, P259, DOI 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000263
[33]   Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease [J].
Weber, PA ;
Merola, S ;
Wasielewski, A ;
Ballantyne, GH .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2002, 45 (12) :1689-1694
[34]   Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer - A randomized trial [J].
Weeks, JC ;
Nelson, H ;
Gelber, S ;
Sargent, D ;
Schroeder, G .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2002, 287 (03) :321-328
[35]   Does telerobotic assistance improve laparoscopic colorectal surgery? [J].
Woeste, G ;
Bechstein, WO ;
Wullstein, C .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2005, 20 (03) :253-257
[36]   Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: a Meta-analysis of Eight Studies [J].
Xiong, Binghong ;
Ma, Li ;
Huang, Wei ;
Zhao, Qikang ;
Cheng, Yong ;
Liu, Jingshan .
JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2015, 19 (03) :516-526
[37]   Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Disease, Focusing on Rectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis [J].
Yang, Yongzhi ;
Wang, Feng ;
Zhang, Peng ;
Shi, Chenzhang ;
Zou, Yang ;
Qin, Huanlong ;
Ma, Yanlei .
ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2012, 19 (12) :3727-3736
[38]   Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Comparison of the Operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes [J].
Yoo, Byung-Eun ;
Cho, Jae-Sung ;
Shin, Jae-Won ;
Lee, Dong-Won ;
Kwak, Jung-Myun ;
Kim, Jin ;
Kim, Seon-Hahn .
ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 22 (04) :1219-1225