Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Comparison of the Operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Byung Eun Yoo, Jae Sung Cho, Jae Won Shin, Dong Won Lee, Jung-Myun Kwak, Jin Kim, Seon Hahn Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Robotic surgery was developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and is increasingly used to treat low rectal cancer. In this study, we compared the operative, oncological, and functional outcomes of low rectal cancer patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR). Methods: Prospectively collected data from low rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic ISR between September 2006 and August 2011 were retrospectively compared. The functional outcomes of patients followed up for ≥12 months after ileostomy closure were evaluated via questionnaire. Results: Forty-four and 26 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic ISR, respectively. The robotic group patients had a higher body mass index (BMI; 21.42 ± 3.13 vs. 24.13 ± 3.33 kg/m2; p = 0.001), more advanced clinical N stage (p = 0.029), lower cancer location (3.71 ± 0.89 vs. 3.24 ± 0.78 cm; p = 0.023), more frequent chemoradiotherapy (26.9 vs. 54.5 %; p = 0.025), and longer operation time (286.77 ± 51.46 vs. 316.43 ± 65.11 min; p = 0.038). However, no intergroup differences were observed in the pathological details (except the number of retrieved lymph nodes), postoperative morbidity, 3-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival (RFS), local RFS, and functional outcomes. Conclusions: Robotic and laparoscopic ISR yielded similar operative, oncological, and functional outcomes in patients with low rectal cancer, despite differences in unfavorable outcome-affecting factors, including BMI, clinical N stage, cancer location, and chemoradiotherapy frequency. A randomized trial will provide more solid methodology for investigating the potential benefits of robotic ISR.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1219-1225
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Surgical Oncology
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Mar 1

Fingerprint

Robotics
Rectal Neoplasms
Chemoradiotherapy
Survival
Recurrence
Ileostomy
Laparoscopy
Neoplasms
Body Mass Index
Lymph Nodes
Morbidity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Oncology

Cite this

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer : Comparison of the Operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes. / Yoo, Byung Eun; Cho, Jae Sung; Shin, Jae Won; Lee, Dong Won; Kwak, Jung-Myun; Kim, Jin; Kim, Seon Hahn.

In: Annals of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 22, No. 4, 01.03.2015, p. 1219-1225.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a1149643ab0741a6864f2e3a51dd3ae6,
title = "Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Comparison of the Operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes",
abstract = "Background: Robotic surgery was developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and is increasingly used to treat low rectal cancer. In this study, we compared the operative, oncological, and functional outcomes of low rectal cancer patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR). Methods: Prospectively collected data from low rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic ISR between September 2006 and August 2011 were retrospectively compared. The functional outcomes of patients followed up for ≥12 months after ileostomy closure were evaluated via questionnaire. Results: Forty-four and 26 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic ISR, respectively. The robotic group patients had a higher body mass index (BMI; 21.42 ± 3.13 vs. 24.13 ± 3.33 kg/m2; p = 0.001), more advanced clinical N stage (p = 0.029), lower cancer location (3.71 ± 0.89 vs. 3.24 ± 0.78 cm; p = 0.023), more frequent chemoradiotherapy (26.9 vs. 54.5 {\%}; p = 0.025), and longer operation time (286.77 ± 51.46 vs. 316.43 ± 65.11 min; p = 0.038). However, no intergroup differences were observed in the pathological details (except the number of retrieved lymph nodes), postoperative morbidity, 3-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival (RFS), local RFS, and functional outcomes. Conclusions: Robotic and laparoscopic ISR yielded similar operative, oncological, and functional outcomes in patients with low rectal cancer, despite differences in unfavorable outcome-affecting factors, including BMI, clinical N stage, cancer location, and chemoradiotherapy frequency. A randomized trial will provide more solid methodology for investigating the potential benefits of robotic ISR.",
author = "Yoo, {Byung Eun} and Cho, {Jae Sung} and Shin, {Jae Won} and Lee, {Dong Won} and Jung-Myun Kwak and Jin Kim and Kim, {Seon Hahn}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1245/s10434-014-4177-5",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "1219--1225",
journal = "Annals of Surgical Oncology",
issn = "1068-9265",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

T2 - Comparison of the Operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

AU - Yoo, Byung Eun

AU - Cho, Jae Sung

AU - Shin, Jae Won

AU - Lee, Dong Won

AU - Kwak, Jung-Myun

AU - Kim, Jin

AU - Kim, Seon Hahn

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Background: Robotic surgery was developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and is increasingly used to treat low rectal cancer. In this study, we compared the operative, oncological, and functional outcomes of low rectal cancer patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR). Methods: Prospectively collected data from low rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic ISR between September 2006 and August 2011 were retrospectively compared. The functional outcomes of patients followed up for ≥12 months after ileostomy closure were evaluated via questionnaire. Results: Forty-four and 26 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic ISR, respectively. The robotic group patients had a higher body mass index (BMI; 21.42 ± 3.13 vs. 24.13 ± 3.33 kg/m2; p = 0.001), more advanced clinical N stage (p = 0.029), lower cancer location (3.71 ± 0.89 vs. 3.24 ± 0.78 cm; p = 0.023), more frequent chemoradiotherapy (26.9 vs. 54.5 %; p = 0.025), and longer operation time (286.77 ± 51.46 vs. 316.43 ± 65.11 min; p = 0.038). However, no intergroup differences were observed in the pathological details (except the number of retrieved lymph nodes), postoperative morbidity, 3-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival (RFS), local RFS, and functional outcomes. Conclusions: Robotic and laparoscopic ISR yielded similar operative, oncological, and functional outcomes in patients with low rectal cancer, despite differences in unfavorable outcome-affecting factors, including BMI, clinical N stage, cancer location, and chemoradiotherapy frequency. A randomized trial will provide more solid methodology for investigating the potential benefits of robotic ISR.

AB - Background: Robotic surgery was developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and is increasingly used to treat low rectal cancer. In this study, we compared the operative, oncological, and functional outcomes of low rectal cancer patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR). Methods: Prospectively collected data from low rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic ISR between September 2006 and August 2011 were retrospectively compared. The functional outcomes of patients followed up for ≥12 months after ileostomy closure were evaluated via questionnaire. Results: Forty-four and 26 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic ISR, respectively. The robotic group patients had a higher body mass index (BMI; 21.42 ± 3.13 vs. 24.13 ± 3.33 kg/m2; p = 0.001), more advanced clinical N stage (p = 0.029), lower cancer location (3.71 ± 0.89 vs. 3.24 ± 0.78 cm; p = 0.023), more frequent chemoradiotherapy (26.9 vs. 54.5 %; p = 0.025), and longer operation time (286.77 ± 51.46 vs. 316.43 ± 65.11 min; p = 0.038). However, no intergroup differences were observed in the pathological details (except the number of retrieved lymph nodes), postoperative morbidity, 3-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival (RFS), local RFS, and functional outcomes. Conclusions: Robotic and laparoscopic ISR yielded similar operative, oncological, and functional outcomes in patients with low rectal cancer, despite differences in unfavorable outcome-affecting factors, including BMI, clinical N stage, cancer location, and chemoradiotherapy frequency. A randomized trial will provide more solid methodology for investigating the potential benefits of robotic ISR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925506794&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925506794&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1245/s10434-014-4177-5

DO - 10.1245/s10434-014-4177-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 25326398

AN - SCOPUS:84925506794

VL - 22

SP - 1219

EP - 1225

JO - Annals of Surgical Oncology

JF - Annals of Surgical Oncology

SN - 1068-9265

IS - 4

ER -