Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of short-term outcomes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer (RC) after neadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database, and we analyzed 14 robotic and 65 laparoscopic sphincter saving TME (R-TME and L-TME, respectively) performed by one surgeon between 2005 and 2013. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications and and pathology results were compared between the two groups. The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the R-TME than in the L-TME group (182 min versus 140 min). Only two conversions occurred in the L-TME group. No difference was found between groups regarding perioperative recovery and postoperative complication rates. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the RTME than in the L-TME group (32 versus 23, p = 0.008). The median circumferential margin (CRM) was 10 mm in the R-TME group, 6.5 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.047. The median distal resection margin (DRM) was 27.5 mm in the R-TME, 15 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.014). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the R-TME group was complete in all patients. In the L-TME group, grading was complete in 52 (80 %) and incomplete in 13 (20 %) cases (p = 0.109). R-TME is a safe and feasible procedure that facilitates performing of TME in male patients with mid-low RC after NCRT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Daniels IR, Fisher SE, Heald RJ, Moran BJ (2007) Accurate staging, selective preoperative therapy, and optimal surgery improves outcome in rectal cancer: a review of the recent evidence. Colorectal Dis 9:290–301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kapiteijn E, Putter H, van de Velde CJ, Cooperative investigators of the Dutch ColoRectal Cancer Group (2002) Impact of the introduction and training of total mesorectal excision on recurrence and survival in rectal cancer in The Netherlands. Br J Surg 89:1142–1149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Martling A, Holm T, Rutqvist LE et al (2005) Impact of a surgical training program on rectal cancer outcomes in Stockholm. Br J Surg 92:225–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wibe A, Møller B, Norstein J et al (2002) Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group. A national strategic change in treatment policy for rectal cancer–implementation of total mesorectal excision as routine treatment in Norway. A national audit. Dis Colon Rectum 45:857–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Minsky BD, Cohen AM, Kemeny N et al (1993) The efficacy of preoperative 5-fluorouracil, high-dose leucovorin, and sequential radiation therapy for unresectable rectal cancer. Cancer 71:3486–3492

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Theodoropoulos G, Wise WE, Padmanabhan A et al (2002) T-level downstaging and complete pathologic response after preoperative chemoradiation for advanced rectal cancer result in decreased recurrence and improved disease-free survival. Dis Colon Rectum 45:895–903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Staudacher C, Vignali A (2010) Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: the state of the art. World J Gastrointest Surg 2:275–282

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Poon JT, Law WL (2009) Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a review. Ann Surg Oncol 16:3038–3047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe P et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS et al (2009) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1480–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A et al (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 24:2888–2894

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH (2010) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 17:3195–3202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Saklani AP, Lim DR, Hur H et al (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of oncologic outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:1689–1698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fernandez R, Anaya DA, Li LT et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer in a veteran population. Am J Surg 206:509–517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL Jr (1978) ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 49:239–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Balik E, Asoglu O, Saglam S et al (2010) Effects of surgical laparoscopic experience on the short-term postoperative outcome of rectal cancer: results of a high volume single center institution. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:93–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Asoglu O, Balik E, Kunduz E et al (2013) Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: outcomes in 513 patients. World J Surg 37:883–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Asoglu O, Kunduz E, Rahmi Serin K et al (2014) Standardized laparoscopic sphincter preserving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: long-term oncologic outcome in 217 unselected consecutive patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 24:145–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leroy J, Jamali F, Forbes L et al (2004) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery: long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 18:281–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Morino M, Parini U, Giraudo G et al (2003) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a consecutive series of 100 patients. Ann Surg 237:335–342

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ (2010) Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:1638–1645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C, Cheng YJ (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Res 188:404–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rottoli M, Bona S, Rosati R et al (2009) Laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: effects of conversion on short-term outcome and survival. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1279–1286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chan AC, Poon JT, Fan JK, Lo SH, Law WL (2008) Impact of conversion on the long-term outcome in laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 22:2625–2630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ptok H, Steinert R, Meyer F et al (2006) Long-term oncological results after laparoscopic, converted, and primary open procedures for rectal carcinoma. Results of a multicenter observational study. Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen 77:709–717

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thorpe H, Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Copeland J, Brown JM (2008) Medical research council conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer trial G. Patient factors influencing conversion from laparoscopically assisted to open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 95:199–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol J et al (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy. Ann Surg 252:254–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Batoli A et al (2009) Short and medium term outcome of robotassisted and traditional laparoscopic rectal resection. JSLS 13:176–183

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ortiz-Oshiro E, Sánchez-Egido I, Moreno-Sierra J, Pérez CF, Díaz JS, Fernández-Represa JÁ (2012) Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot 8:360–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kelly SB, Mills SJ, Bradburn DM, On behalf of the Northern Region Colorectal Cancer Audit Group et al (2011) Effect of the circumferential resection margin on survival following rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 98:573–581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Huang MJ, Liang JL, Wang H et al (2011) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on oncologic adequacy of resection and long-term oncologic outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:415–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Quirke P, Dixon MF (1988) The prediction of local recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma by histopathological examination. Int J Colorectal Dis 3:127–131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CA, Kranenbarg EK, Pathology Review Committee et al (2002) Cooperative Clinical Investigators Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one millimeter but two millimeters is the limit. Am J Surg Pathol 26:350–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Anderson C, Uman G, Pigazzi A (2008) Oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:1135–1142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Colorectal Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection II (COLOR II) Study Group et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14:210–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JH (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20:1729–1734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH (2012) A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2485–2493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kwak JM, Kim SH, Kim J, Son DN, Baek SJ, Cho JS (2011) Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case-control study. Dis Colon Rectum 54:151–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Author Oktar Asoglu, Author Fatma Ayca Gultekin, Author Burcin Batman, Author Serden Ay, Author Kursat Rahmi Serin, Author Yersu Kapran, and Author Sezer Saglam declare that they have no conflicts of interest or financialties to disclose.

Ethical standard

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Liv Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Kursat Rahmi Serin, Burçin Batman & Oktar Asoglu

  2. Department of General Surgery, Bulent Ecevit University School of Medicine, Zonguldak, Turkey

    Fatma Ayca Gultekin

  3. General Surgery Clinic, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey

    Serden Ay

  4. Department of Pathology, VKV American Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Yersu Kapran

  5. Department of Medical Oncology, Bilim University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sezer Saglam

Authors
  1. Kursat Rahmi Serin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatma Ayca Gultekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Burçin Batman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Serden Ay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yersu Kapran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sezer Saglam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Oktar Asoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oktar Asoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Serin, K.R., Gultekin, F.A., Batman, B. et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of short-term outcomes. J Robotic Surg 9, 187–194 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-015-0514-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-015-0514-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation