Robotic-Assisted Surgery Improves the Quality of Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Compared to Laparoscopy: Results of a Case-Controlled Analysis.
Details
Request a copy Under indefinite embargo.
UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: Not specified
UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: Not specified
Serval ID
serval:BIB_DDFA8231588F
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Robotic-Assisted Surgery Improves the Quality of Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Compared to Laparoscopy: Results of a Case-Controlled Analysis.
Journal
World Journal of Surgery
ISSN
1432-2323 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0364-2313
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2016
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
40
Number
4
Pages
1010-1016
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Comparative Study ; Journal Article
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of a robotic surgical system is claimed to allow precise traction and counter-traction, especially in a narrow pelvis. Whether this translates to improvement of the quality of the resected specimen is not yet clear. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of the TME and the short-term oncological outcome between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer resections.
METHODS: 20 consecutive robotic TME performed in a single institution for rectal cancer (Rob group) were matched 1:2 to 40 laparoscopic resections (Lap group) for gender, body mass index (BMI), and distance from anal verge on rigid proctoscopy. The quality of TME was assessed by 2 blinded and independent pathologists and reported according to international standardized guidelines.
RESULTS: Both samples were well matched for gender, BMI (median 25.9 vs. 24.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.24), and level of the tumor (4.1 vs. 4.8 cm, p = 0.20). The quality of the TME was better in the Robotic group (complete TME: 95 vs. 55 %; p = 0.0003, nearly complete TME 5 vs. 37 %; p = 0.04, incomplete TME 0 vs. 8 %, p = 0.09). A trend for lower positive circumferential margin was observed in the Robotic group (10 vs. 25 %, p = 0.1).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that robotic-assisted surgery improves the quality of TME for rectal cancer. Whether this translates to better oncological outcome needs to be further investigated.
METHODS: 20 consecutive robotic TME performed in a single institution for rectal cancer (Rob group) were matched 1:2 to 40 laparoscopic resections (Lap group) for gender, body mass index (BMI), and distance from anal verge on rigid proctoscopy. The quality of TME was assessed by 2 blinded and independent pathologists and reported according to international standardized guidelines.
RESULTS: Both samples were well matched for gender, BMI (median 25.9 vs. 24.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.24), and level of the tumor (4.1 vs. 4.8 cm, p = 0.20). The quality of the TME was better in the Robotic group (complete TME: 95 vs. 55 %; p = 0.0003, nearly complete TME 5 vs. 37 %; p = 0.04, incomplete TME 0 vs. 8 %, p = 0.09). A trend for lower positive circumferential margin was observed in the Robotic group (10 vs. 25 %, p = 0.1).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that robotic-assisted surgery improves the quality of TME for rectal cancer. Whether this translates to better oncological outcome needs to be further investigated.
Keywords
Colectomy/standards, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Laparoscopy/standards, Male, Proctoscopy, Rectal Neoplasms/diagnosis, Rectal Neoplasms/surgery, Retrospective Studies, Robotics/methods, Time Factors
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
31/12/2015 11:13
Last modification date
13/06/2023 5:58