Robotic Surgery for Colon and Rectal Cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Park EJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4751169 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Opinion statementThe current standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer is based on a multimodal comprehensive treatment combined with preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiation and complete surgical resection of the entire mesorectal cancer. For ultra-low cases and cases with lateral lymph node metastasis, due to limitations in laparoscopic technology, the difficulties of operation and incidence of intraoperative complications are always difficult to overcome. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is an emerging technique that can overcome some of the technical drawbacks posed by conventional laparoscopic approaches, improving the scope and effect of radical operations. However, evidence from the literature regarding its oncological safety and clinical outcomes is still lacking. This brief review summarized the current status of robotic technology in rectal cancer therapy from the perspective of several mainstream surgical methods, including robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), robotic transanal TME, robotic lateral lymph node dissection, and artificial intelligence, focusing on the developmental direction of robotic approach in the field of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in the future.
| S-EPMC9174118 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5132074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The primary goal to achieve cure in oncology is to reduce recurrence, maximize disease-free survival, maintain function, and optimize quality of life. Surgery remains the mainstay treatment modality in rectal cancer. The current trend is to perform least invasive method of doing complex surgeries while not compromising in the oncological of functional outcomes of patients. Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery entails removal of the rectum with its fascia as an intact unit while preserving surrounding vital structures. The procedure is technically challenging because of the narrow and deep pelvic cavity housing the rectum encased by fatty lymph vascular tissue within the perirectal fascia, distally the anal sphincter complex, and an intimate surrounded by vital structures like ureter, vessels, and nerves. Robotic technology enables overcoming these difficulties caused by complex pelvic anatomy. This system can facilitate better preservation of the pelvic autonomic nerve and thereby achieve favorable postoperative sexual and voiding functions after rectal cancer surgery. The nerve-preserving TME technique includes identification and preservation of the superior hypogastric plexus nerve, bilateral hypogastric nerves, pelvic plexus, and neurovascular bundles.
| S-EPMC7714808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To give a comprehensive review of current literature on robotic rectal cancer surgery.A systematic review of current literature via PubMed and Embase search engines was performed to identify relevant articles from january 2007 to november 2013. The keywords used were: "robotic surgery", "surgical robotics", "laparoscopic computer-assisted surgery", "colectomy" and "rectal resection".After the initial screen of 380 articles, 20 papers were selected for review. A total of 1062 patients (male 64.0%) with a mean age of 61.1 years and body mass index of 24.9 kg/m(2) were included in the review. Out of 1062 robotic-assisted operations, 831 (78.2%) anterior and low anterior resections, 132 (12.4%) intersphincteric resection with coloanal anastomosis, 98 (9.3%) abdominoperineal resections and 1 (0.1%) Hartmann's operation were included in the review. Robotic rectal surgery was associated with longer operative time but with comparable oncological results and anastomotic leak rate when compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery.Robotic colorectal surgery has continued to evolve to its current state with promising results; feasible surgical option with low conversion rate and comparable short-term oncological results. The challenges faced with robotic surgery are for more high quality studies to justify its cost.
| S-EPMC4058726 | biostudies-other
Project description:Although the application of laparoscopic rectal surgery has been widely accepted by accumulated evidence, it remains technically difficult in some cases of obesity, narrow male pelvis, bulky tumors, or involvement of adjacent organs. After robotic rectal surgery has been covered by the health insurance system in Japan since April 2018, we have employed robotic rectal surgery for an increasing number of cases by taking advantages of its 3D vision and wrist function. When a colorectal cancer involves the urinary bladder, the surgical treatment of choice is an anterior resection with en bloc (partial or total) bladder resection, depending on the site and extent of bladder involvement. In the attached video, robotic surgery was conducted with the aid of intraoperative cystoscopy, which resulted in curative resection with negative margin. Given that the robotic system provides excellent stability and dexterity for bladder reconstruction, the robotic approach can be technically suitable for locally advanced T4 colorectal cancer with urinary involvement.
| S-EPMC7297884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: -139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -159.11 to -120.86; P?<?0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: -2.10, 95% CI: -3.47 to -0.73; P?=?0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P?=?0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: -0.97, 95% CI?=?-1.06 to -0.88, P?<?0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: -1.71.95% CI?=?-3.31 to -0.12, P?=?0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.
| S-EPMC4882598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014 (robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage?I-III disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME (L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME (R-TME) (P < 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients (8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P < 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group (18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P < 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients (1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P < 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.
| S-EPMC4814646 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn rectal cancer surgery, anastomotic leakage (AL) remains the most feared complication, with a frequency of up to 30% in non-high-volume centers. The preservation of proper vascularization is a key factor for successful anastomosis. The use of fluorescence with indocyanine green (ICG) as an intraoperative method to verify optimal perfusion is becoming an interesting tool in rectal surgery. Today, robotic surgery, together with the use of the intraoperative evaluation of the perfusion with ICG, could be a real strategy to deal with AL, allowing for a more delicate and less traumatic surgical technique. This strategy may allow for an extremely accurate surgery, and for optimal control of the proper vascularization of the rectum.MethodsThe purpose of this descriptive review is to analyze the impact of fluorescence and robotic surgery on short-term surgical outcomes for rectal cancer.ResultsWe performed a systematic literature search using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases. The primary endpoints were to evaluate the application of ICG fluorescence in robotic rectal surgery and the rate of anastomotic leakage when using these technological implementations. The secondary endpoints were to evaluate the dosage of ICG and the timing of application by different surgeons.ConclusionsICG fluorescence is an inexpensive and quick method to assess bowel perfusion, providing immediate feedback to the surgeon, even if its role has not been proven. A quantitative system must be systematically introduced to minimize the subjectiveness of the visualized image.
| S-EPMC9139806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransabdominal robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are newly introduced strategies for rectal cancer. These procedures might have many advantages in rectal cancer treatment in terms of improving oncological and functional outcomes, especially in cases involving advanced cancer or technical difficulty. In the present study, we aimed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of transabdominal robotic surgery and laparoscopic TaTME as a hybrid surgery for rectal cancer.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively evaluated six patients who underwent hybrid surgery for rectal cancer from August 2018 to April 2020. Both clinical and pathological outcomes were assessed.ResultsTwo patients showed circumferential margin involvement both before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Three patients were planned to undergo hybrid surgery with intersphincteric resection because of a narrow pelvis. One patient was planned to undergo hybrid surgery for a giant tumor of >10 cm. The median length of hospitalization was 17 days. No patients required conversion to an open procedure. All patients underwent formation of defunctioning ileostomies. Two patients had a stapled anastomosis and four had a hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Complications included one case of anastomotic leakage, which was managed conservatively with ultrasound- and computed tomography-guided drainage and antibiotics. Histological analysis revealed that all specimens had a negative radial margin and distal margin. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 17.5. Two patients showed extensive lymph node metastases, including lateral node metastasis.ConclusionHybrid surgery was performed safely and may improve oncological outcomes for rectal cancer. This technique has many potential benefits and would be alternative option in multimodal strategies for rectal cancer.
| S-EPMC8519803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robotic surgery has been advocated for the radical excision of rectal cancer. Most data supporting its use have been reported from European and Asian centers, with a paucity of data from the United States documenting clear advantages of the robotic technique. This study compares the short-term outcome of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.Consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (group 1) or robotic (group 2) rectal cancer excision at a single institution over a 2-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The main outcome measures were operative time, blood loss, conversion rates, number of lymph nodes, margin positivity, length of hospital stay, complications, and readmission rates.Forty-two patients were analyzed. The median operative time was shorter in group 1 than that in group 2 (240 minutes vs 260 minutes, P=.04). No difference was noted in blood loss, transfusion rates, intraoperative complications, or conversion rates. There was no difference in circumferential or distal margin positivity. The median length of stay was shorter in group 1 (5 days vs 6 days, P=.05). The 90-day complication rate was similar in both groups (33% vs 43%, P=.75), but there was a trend toward more anastomotic leaks in group 1 (14% vs 0%, P=.23). Similarly, a non-statistically significant trend toward a higher readmission rate was noted in group 1 (24% vs 5%, P=.18).Robotic rectal cancer excision yielded a longer operative time and hospital length of stay, although immediate oncologic results were comparable. The need for randomized data is critical to determine whether the added resource utilization in robotic surgery is justifiable.
| S-EPMC4208889 | biostudies-other