+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Quality of total mesorectal excision and depth of circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer: a matched comparison of the first 20 robotic cases



Quality of total mesorectal excision and depth of circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer: a matched comparison of the first 20 robotic cases



Colorectal Disease 16(8): 603-609



There are concerns about the impact of robotic proctectomy on the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and the impact of laparoscopic proctectomy on the depth of the circumferential resection margin (CRM). The aim of this study was to compare the first 20 consecutive robotic proctectomies performed in our unit with matched series of open and laparoscopic proctocolectomy performed by the same surgeon. Data on the first 20 consecutive patients treated with robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer, <12 cm from the anal verge, by the senior author (RB) were extracted from a prospectively maintained database. Groups of patients treated with open and laparoscopic proctectomy, matched for age, gender and body mass index (BMI) with those undergoing robotic proctectomy, were selected. The quality of the TME was judged as complete, nearly complete or incomplete. CRM clearance was reported in millimetres. Physiological parameters and operative severity were assessed. Age (P = 0.619), Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Morbidity and Mortality (POSSUM) score (P = 0.657), operative severity score (P = 0.977), predicted mortality (P = 0.758), comorbidities (P = 0.427), previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.941), tumour height (P = 0.912), location (P = 0.876), stage (P = 0.984), neoadjuvant chemoradiation (P = 0.625), operating time (P = 0.066), blood loss (P = 0.356), ileostomy (P = 0.934), conversion (P = 0.362), resection type (P = 1.000), flatus (P = 0.437), diet (P = 0.439), length of hospital stay (P = 0.978), complications (P = 0.671), reoperations (P = 0.804), reinterventions (P = 0.612), readmissions (P = 0.349), tumour size (P = 0.542; P = 0.532; P = 0.238), distal margin (P = 0.790), nodes harvested (P = 0.338) and pathology stage (P = 0.623) did not differ among the three groups. The quality of TME showed a trend to be lower following robotic surgery, although this was not statistically significant [open 95/5/15 (complete/nearly complete/incompete) vs laparoscopic 95/5/15 vs robotic 80/5/15; P = 0.235], but the degree of clearance at the CRM was significantly greater in robotic patients [open 8 (0-30) mm vs laparoscopic 4 (0-30) mm vs robotic 10.5 (1-30) mm; P = 0.02]. The study reports no statistically significant difference between open and laparoscopic techniques in the quality of TME during the learning curve of robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer and demonstrates an improved CRM.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055311654

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24750995

DOI: 10.1111/codi.12634


Related references

The circumferential resection margins status: A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 42(6): 808-812, 2016

Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery 89(3): 327-334, 2002

Robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: A comparison of 115 cases. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2017

Prognostic significance of circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology 14(2): 462-469, 2006

Rectal cancer within 10 cm. Comparison of the radicality of laparoscopic and open surgical techniques with regard to the circumferential resection margin and the completeness of mesorectal excision. Rozhledy V Chirurgii 92(6): 312-319, 2015

Role of total mesorectal excision and of circumferential resection margin in local recurrence and survival of patients with rectal carcinoma. Digestive Diseases 25(1): 51-55, 2007

Circumferential margin involvement after total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer: are all R1 resections equal?. Colorectal Disease 19(11): O377-O385, 2017

A Multicenter Matched Comparison of Transanal and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid and Low-rectal Adenocarcinoma. Annals of Surgery: -, 2018

The circumferential margin in rectal cancer: Recommendations based on the Dutch total mesorectal excision study. European Journal of Cancer 38(7): 973-976, 2002

Transanal Endoscopic and Transabdominal Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid-to-Low Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Short-term Postoperative and Oncologic Outcomes by Using a Case-Matched Analysis. Annals of Coloproctology 34(1): 29-35, 2018

Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surgical Endoscopy 25(2): 521-525, 2011

Circumferential margin plays an independent impact on the outcome of rectal cancer patients receiving curative total mesorectal excision. American Journal of Surgery 206(5): 771-777, 2014

The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery. Colorectal Disease 20(5): O103-O113, 2018

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surgical Endoscopy 20(10): 1521-1525, 2006

Risk factors for circumferential R1 resection after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a study in 233 consecutive patients with mid or low rectal cancer. International Journal of Colorectal Disease 30(2): 197-203, 2015