Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer

Short-term outcomes of a case-control study

Jung-Myun Kwak, Seon Hahn Kim, Jin Kim, Dong Nyoung Son, Se-Jin Baek, Jae Sung Cho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

138 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: Few data are available to compare robotic and laparoscopic techniques for rectal cancer resection. This study aimed to compare short-term outcomes with these procedures performed by a single surgeon. METHODS: Using data from a prospective database of all operations performed in our department, we retrospectively analyzed data from 117 robotic and 102 laparoscopic rectal cancer resections performed by one surgeon between July 2007 and October 2009. Robotic resection was offered as a treatment option to all patients, and laparoscopic resection was performed for those who refused. This analysis was a case-control study in which patients in the 2 groups were matched according to tumor location, staging, age, and gender. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients (59 matched pairs) were included in the study. No differences were found between robotic and laparoscopic resection regarding number of lymph nodes harvested (median, 20; interquartile range, 12-27 vs 21; 14-28; P =.702) or distal resection margin (median, 2.2 cm; interquartile range, 1.5-3.0 cm vs 2.0; 1.2-3.5 cm; P =.865). The circumferential margin was positive (≤2 mm) in 1 patient in the robotic group but in none of the laparoscopic group (P >.999). Operating time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (P <.0001). No conversions were necessary in the robotic group, but 2 cases (3.4%) were converted to open surgery in the laparoscopic group (P =.496). No differences were observed between groups regarding postoperative complications. Operative mortality was zero in both groups. During a median follow-up of 15.0 months, 2 cases of distant metastases and 1 case of local recurrence were observed in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic rectal cancer resection can be safely performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with acceptable short-term outcomes comparable to those for laparoscopic resection.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)151-156
Number of pages6
JournalDiseases of the Colon and Rectum
Volume54
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011 Feb 1

Fingerprint

Robotics
Rectal Neoplasms
Case-Control Studies
Neoplasm Staging
Laparoscopy
Research Design
Lymph Nodes
Databases
Neoplasm Metastasis
Recurrence
Mortality
Surgeons

Keywords

  • Case-control study
  • Laparoscopic
  • Rectal cancer resection
  • Robotic
  • Short-term outcome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer : Short-term outcomes of a case-control study. / Kwak, Jung-Myun; Kim, Seon Hahn; Kim, Jin; Son, Dong Nyoung; Baek, Se-Jin; Cho, Jae Sung.

In: Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, Vol. 54, No. 2, 01.02.2011, p. 151-156.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bd7fec08907441ab80bb84c52d35881a,
title = "Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes of a case-control study",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Few data are available to compare robotic and laparoscopic techniques for rectal cancer resection. This study aimed to compare short-term outcomes with these procedures performed by a single surgeon. METHODS: Using data from a prospective database of all operations performed in our department, we retrospectively analyzed data from 117 robotic and 102 laparoscopic rectal cancer resections performed by one surgeon between July 2007 and October 2009. Robotic resection was offered as a treatment option to all patients, and laparoscopic resection was performed for those who refused. This analysis was a case-control study in which patients in the 2 groups were matched according to tumor location, staging, age, and gender. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients (59 matched pairs) were included in the study. No differences were found between robotic and laparoscopic resection regarding number of lymph nodes harvested (median, 20; interquartile range, 12-27 vs 21; 14-28; P =.702) or distal resection margin (median, 2.2 cm; interquartile range, 1.5-3.0 cm vs 2.0; 1.2-3.5 cm; P =.865). The circumferential margin was positive (≤2 mm) in 1 patient in the robotic group but in none of the laparoscopic group (P >.999). Operating time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (P <.0001). No conversions were necessary in the robotic group, but 2 cases (3.4{\%}) were converted to open surgery in the laparoscopic group (P =.496). No differences were observed between groups regarding postoperative complications. Operative mortality was zero in both groups. During a median follow-up of 15.0 months, 2 cases of distant metastases and 1 case of local recurrence were observed in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic rectal cancer resection can be safely performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with acceptable short-term outcomes comparable to those for laparoscopic resection.",
keywords = "Case-control study, Laparoscopic, Rectal cancer resection, Robotic, Short-term outcome",
author = "Jung-Myun Kwak and Kim, {Seon Hahn} and Jin Kim and Son, {Dong Nyoung} and Se-Jin Baek and Cho, {Jae Sung}",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181fec4fd",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
pages = "151--156",
journal = "Diseases of the Colon and Rectum",
issn = "0012-3706",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer

T2 - Short-term outcomes of a case-control study

AU - Kwak, Jung-Myun

AU - Kim, Seon Hahn

AU - Kim, Jin

AU - Son, Dong Nyoung

AU - Baek, Se-Jin

AU - Cho, Jae Sung

PY - 2011/2/1

Y1 - 2011/2/1

N2 - PURPOSE: Few data are available to compare robotic and laparoscopic techniques for rectal cancer resection. This study aimed to compare short-term outcomes with these procedures performed by a single surgeon. METHODS: Using data from a prospective database of all operations performed in our department, we retrospectively analyzed data from 117 robotic and 102 laparoscopic rectal cancer resections performed by one surgeon between July 2007 and October 2009. Robotic resection was offered as a treatment option to all patients, and laparoscopic resection was performed for those who refused. This analysis was a case-control study in which patients in the 2 groups were matched according to tumor location, staging, age, and gender. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients (59 matched pairs) were included in the study. No differences were found between robotic and laparoscopic resection regarding number of lymph nodes harvested (median, 20; interquartile range, 12-27 vs 21; 14-28; P =.702) or distal resection margin (median, 2.2 cm; interquartile range, 1.5-3.0 cm vs 2.0; 1.2-3.5 cm; P =.865). The circumferential margin was positive (≤2 mm) in 1 patient in the robotic group but in none of the laparoscopic group (P >.999). Operating time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (P <.0001). No conversions were necessary in the robotic group, but 2 cases (3.4%) were converted to open surgery in the laparoscopic group (P =.496). No differences were observed between groups regarding postoperative complications. Operative mortality was zero in both groups. During a median follow-up of 15.0 months, 2 cases of distant metastases and 1 case of local recurrence were observed in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic rectal cancer resection can be safely performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with acceptable short-term outcomes comparable to those for laparoscopic resection.

AB - PURPOSE: Few data are available to compare robotic and laparoscopic techniques for rectal cancer resection. This study aimed to compare short-term outcomes with these procedures performed by a single surgeon. METHODS: Using data from a prospective database of all operations performed in our department, we retrospectively analyzed data from 117 robotic and 102 laparoscopic rectal cancer resections performed by one surgeon between July 2007 and October 2009. Robotic resection was offered as a treatment option to all patients, and laparoscopic resection was performed for those who refused. This analysis was a case-control study in which patients in the 2 groups were matched according to tumor location, staging, age, and gender. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients (59 matched pairs) were included in the study. No differences were found between robotic and laparoscopic resection regarding number of lymph nodes harvested (median, 20; interquartile range, 12-27 vs 21; 14-28; P =.702) or distal resection margin (median, 2.2 cm; interquartile range, 1.5-3.0 cm vs 2.0; 1.2-3.5 cm; P =.865). The circumferential margin was positive (≤2 mm) in 1 patient in the robotic group but in none of the laparoscopic group (P >.999). Operating time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (P <.0001). No conversions were necessary in the robotic group, but 2 cases (3.4%) were converted to open surgery in the laparoscopic group (P =.496). No differences were observed between groups regarding postoperative complications. Operative mortality was zero in both groups. During a median follow-up of 15.0 months, 2 cases of distant metastases and 1 case of local recurrence were observed in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic rectal cancer resection can be safely performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with acceptable short-term outcomes comparable to those for laparoscopic resection.

KW - Case-control study

KW - Laparoscopic

KW - Rectal cancer resection

KW - Robotic

KW - Short-term outcome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78651410155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78651410155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181fec4fd

DO - 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181fec4fd

M3 - Article

VL - 54

SP - 151

EP - 156

JO - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

JF - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

SN - 0012-3706

IS - 2

ER -