Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer

Se-Jin Baek, Sami AL-Asari, Duck Hyoun Jeong, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Nam Kyu Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Robotic surgery is increasingly used in the field of rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection (uLAR) and coloanal anastomosis (CAA). Between January 2007 and December 2010, a retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative uLAR and CAA with or without intersphincteric resection using either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach. The study excluded patients with tumors invading the levator ani or external sphincter, patients with T4 cancers invading the prostate or vagina, and patients for whom an open approach was used. Patients' short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. This study enrolled 84 consecutive patients (47 in the robotic group and 37 in the laparoscopic group). The patient characteristics and operative data did not differ significantly between the groups except for the rate of conversion to open surgery (robot, 2.1 % vs laparoscopy, 16.2 %; p = 0.02). The postoperative outcomes also were similar in the two groups, but the hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (robot, 9 days vs laparoscopy, 11 days; p = 0.011). No postoperative mortality occurred. The median followup period was 31.5 months. No difference was shown in local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, or disease-free survival between the two groups. Robotic uLAR and CAA with or without ISR is a safe and feasible surgical approach with a lower conversion rate, a shorter hospital stay, and similar oncologic outcomes compared with a laparoscopic approach. Further prospective and case-control cohort studies with longer follow-up periods are required.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4157-4163
Number of pages7
JournalSurgical Endoscopy
Volume27
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 Jan 1
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Robotics
Rectal Neoplasms
Laparoscopy
Length of Stay
Vaginal Neoplasms
Conversion to Open Surgery
Anal Canal
Disease-Free Survival
Case-Control Studies
Prostatic Neoplasms
Cohort Studies
Recurrence
Survival
Mortality
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Coloanal anastomosis
  • Intersphincteric resection
  • Laparoscopic surgery
  • Rectal neoplasm
  • Robotic surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. / Baek, Se-Jin; AL-Asari, Sami; Jeong, Duck Hyoun; Hur, Hyuk; Min, Byung Soh; Baik, Seung Hyuk; Kim, Nam Kyu.

In: Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 27, No. 11, 01.01.2013, p. 4157-4163.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Baek, Se-Jin ; AL-Asari, Sami ; Jeong, Duck Hyoun ; Hur, Hyuk ; Min, Byung Soh ; Baik, Seung Hyuk ; Kim, Nam Kyu. / Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. In: Surgical Endoscopy. 2013 ; Vol. 27, No. 11. pp. 4157-4163.
@article{a76e56d0ee81494b9d4ce1dd6200b4fa,
title = "Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer",
abstract = "Robotic surgery is increasingly used in the field of rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection (uLAR) and coloanal anastomosis (CAA). Between January 2007 and December 2010, a retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative uLAR and CAA with or without intersphincteric resection using either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach. The study excluded patients with tumors invading the levator ani or external sphincter, patients with T4 cancers invading the prostate or vagina, and patients for whom an open approach was used. Patients' short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. This study enrolled 84 consecutive patients (47 in the robotic group and 37 in the laparoscopic group). The patient characteristics and operative data did not differ significantly between the groups except for the rate of conversion to open surgery (robot, 2.1 {\%} vs laparoscopy, 16.2 {\%}; p = 0.02). The postoperative outcomes also were similar in the two groups, but the hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (robot, 9 days vs laparoscopy, 11 days; p = 0.011). No postoperative mortality occurred. The median followup period was 31.5 months. No difference was shown in local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, or disease-free survival between the two groups. Robotic uLAR and CAA with or without ISR is a safe and feasible surgical approach with a lower conversion rate, a shorter hospital stay, and similar oncologic outcomes compared with a laparoscopic approach. Further prospective and case-control cohort studies with longer follow-up periods are required.",
keywords = "Coloanal anastomosis, Intersphincteric resection, Laparoscopic surgery, Rectal neoplasm, Robotic surgery",
author = "Se-Jin Baek and Sami AL-Asari and Jeong, {Duck Hyoun} and Hyuk Hur and Min, {Byung Soh} and Baik, {Seung Hyuk} and Kim, {Nam Kyu}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-013-3014-4",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "4157--4163",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer

AU - Baek, Se-Jin

AU - AL-Asari, Sami

AU - Jeong, Duck Hyoun

AU - Hur, Hyuk

AU - Min, Byung Soh

AU - Baik, Seung Hyuk

AU - Kim, Nam Kyu

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - Robotic surgery is increasingly used in the field of rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection (uLAR) and coloanal anastomosis (CAA). Between January 2007 and December 2010, a retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative uLAR and CAA with or without intersphincteric resection using either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach. The study excluded patients with tumors invading the levator ani or external sphincter, patients with T4 cancers invading the prostate or vagina, and patients for whom an open approach was used. Patients' short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. This study enrolled 84 consecutive patients (47 in the robotic group and 37 in the laparoscopic group). The patient characteristics and operative data did not differ significantly between the groups except for the rate of conversion to open surgery (robot, 2.1 % vs laparoscopy, 16.2 %; p = 0.02). The postoperative outcomes also were similar in the two groups, but the hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (robot, 9 days vs laparoscopy, 11 days; p = 0.011). No postoperative mortality occurred. The median followup period was 31.5 months. No difference was shown in local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, or disease-free survival between the two groups. Robotic uLAR and CAA with or without ISR is a safe and feasible surgical approach with a lower conversion rate, a shorter hospital stay, and similar oncologic outcomes compared with a laparoscopic approach. Further prospective and case-control cohort studies with longer follow-up periods are required.

AB - Robotic surgery is increasingly used in the field of rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection (uLAR) and coloanal anastomosis (CAA). Between January 2007 and December 2010, a retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative uLAR and CAA with or without intersphincteric resection using either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach. The study excluded patients with tumors invading the levator ani or external sphincter, patients with T4 cancers invading the prostate or vagina, and patients for whom an open approach was used. Patients' short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. This study enrolled 84 consecutive patients (47 in the robotic group and 37 in the laparoscopic group). The patient characteristics and operative data did not differ significantly between the groups except for the rate of conversion to open surgery (robot, 2.1 % vs laparoscopy, 16.2 %; p = 0.02). The postoperative outcomes also were similar in the two groups, but the hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (robot, 9 days vs laparoscopy, 11 days; p = 0.011). No postoperative mortality occurred. The median followup period was 31.5 months. No difference was shown in local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, or disease-free survival between the two groups. Robotic uLAR and CAA with or without ISR is a safe and feasible surgical approach with a lower conversion rate, a shorter hospital stay, and similar oncologic outcomes compared with a laparoscopic approach. Further prospective and case-control cohort studies with longer follow-up periods are required.

KW - Coloanal anastomosis

KW - Intersphincteric resection

KW - Laparoscopic surgery

KW - Rectal neoplasm

KW - Robotic surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892809686&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892809686&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-013-3014-4

DO - 10.1007/s00464-013-3014-4

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 4157

EP - 4163

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 11

ER -