Dataset Information

Changing the Way We Manage Rectal Cancer-Standardizing TME from Open to Robotic (Including Laparoscopic).

ABSTRACT: Standardizing total mesorectal excision (TME) has been a topic of interest since 1979 when Professor Richard J. Heald first described TME and a new approach to rectal cancer. The procedure is optimized only if every one of the relevant factors is tackled with precise attention to detail, so that the preoperative, operative, and postoperative practice is standardized completely. The same concept of TME standardization applies today regardless of technique chosen, that is, open laparoscopic, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, or robotic. This article reviews the relevant operative factors in performing a quality TME, looking at both the oncologic and nononcologic advantages and disadvantages. It supports TME as the standard of care in obtaining a negative circumferential margin for mid and lower-third rectal cancers, and discusses the role of tumor-specific mesorectal excision for upper-third rectal cancers. It discusses the new options and challenges each operative technique holds, and identifies the same standardized principles each must obey to provide the highest quality of oncologic resection. The operative documentation of these critical features from diagnostic workup to pathological reporting is also emphasized.

SUBMITTER: Weaver KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4336905 | biostudies-other | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Changing the Way We Manage Rectal Cancer-Standardizing TME from Open to Robotic (Including Laparoscopic).

Weaver Katrina L KL Grimm Leander M LM Fleshman James W JW

Clinics in colon and rectal surgery 20150301 1

Standardizing total mesorectal excision (TME) has been a topic of interest since 1979 when Professor Richard J. Heald first described TME and a new approach to rectal cancer. The procedure is optimized only if every one of the relevant factors is tackled with precise attention to detail, so that the preoperative, operative, and postoperative practice is standardized completely. The same concept of TME standardization applies today regardless of technique chosen, that is, open laparoscopic, singl ...[more]

PMID: 25733971

Similar Datasets

Project description:The open surgeries and more recently minimal invasive surgeries aided by laparoscopic or robotic approaches are employed for rectal cancer treatment procedures. The open approach is the most commonly opted technique, but recent studies have also shown that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has become the standard of care. There are certain shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery such as long learning curve, inadequate counter traction, limited dexterity, lack of tactile feedback and limited two-dimensional visions. Robotic surgery also offers several benefits to overcome the drawbacks of laparoscopic procedures, such as providing better dexterity and a more stable visualization. This study aims to analyse the surgical results in terms of completion of TME, short-term surgical outcomes and hospital stay in after open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted rectal resections respectively. A retrospective review of prospectively maintained database of patients operated for carcinoma rectum between January 2013 and August 2018 at Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Manipal-Vattikuti Institute of Robotic Surgery, Bangalore, was analysed in this study. The surgical parameters like completion of total mesorectal excision; proximal, distal and circumferential resection margins; number of nodes retrieved; and total post operative hospital stay were analysed in the open, laparoscopic-assisted and robotic-assisted groups. A total of 100 patients were included in the study consisting of 25, 25 and 50 patients each in the open, laparoscopic and robotic arms respectively. In case the desired results were not obtained using the advanced technique the procedure was converted and open technique was adopted. The conversion rate to open procedure was 8% (2of 25) in the laparoscopic-assisted group and 2% (1/50) in the robotic-assisted group. The average post operative hospital stay was 7.4, 7.36 and 6 days in the open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted group (p = 0.01) respectively. Robotic rectal resections show a trend towards better surgical results in the form of improved circumferential resection margins, completeness of TME and lower conversion rates.

Project description:The outcomes of robot-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, compared with open resection, have not been fully characterized. A retrospective analysis of pathologic, short-term, and long-term outcomes in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent total or tumour-specific mesorectal excision at a high-volume cancer centre between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. Outcomes after robotic and open surgery were compared on an intention-to-treat basis. Out of 1048 resections performed, 1018 patients were reviewed, with 638 who underwent robotic surgery and 380 open surgery. Robotic surgery was converted to the open approach in 17 (2.7 per cent) patients. Patients who underwent robotic surgery were younger (median 54 (range 22-91) years versus median 58 (range 18-97) years; P < 0.001), had higher tumours (median 80 (range 0-150) mm from the anal verge versus median 70 (0-150) mm; P = 0.001), and were less likely to have received neoadjuvant therapy (64 per cent versus 73 per cent; P = 0.003). For patients who underwent a robotic total mesorectal excision, the operating time was longer (median 283.5 (range 117-712) min versus median 249 (range 70-661) min; P < 0.001). However, the rate of complications was lower (29 per cent versus 45 per cent; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was shorter (median 5 (range 1-32) days versus median 7 (range 0-137) days; P < 0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 2.9 years. The proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin did not differ between the groups, nor did the rate of local recurrence (robotic versus open: 3.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.9 to 5.6 versus 2.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.0 to 4.6; P = 0.400), systemic recurrence (robotic versus open: 11.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 8.5 to 14.8 versus 13.0 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 9.2 to 16.5; P = 0.300), or overall survival (robotic versus open: 97.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 96.3 to 99.3 versus 93.5 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 90.8 to 96.2; P = 0.050). The same results were documented in a subanalysis of 370 matched patients, including 185 who underwent robotic surgery and 185 open surgery, for the overall incidence of any postoperative complications, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and systemic recurrence. In patients with rectal cancer who are candidates for curative resection, robotic mesorectal excision is associated with lower complication rates, shorter length of stay, and equivalent oncologic outcomes, compared with open mesorectal excision.

Project description:AimTo investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes.MethodsThis is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided.ResultsThe present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups.ConclusionLaparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.

Project description:Sacrocolpopexy has been dubbed the “gold standard” repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study sought to determine a genetic cause for sacrocolpopexy failure by comparing genotypes from 10 women who suffered from early POP reoccurance after sacrocolpopexy surgery, versus 40 randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure. We objectively defined early overt failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as having a pelvic organ prolapse quantification system examination (POP-Q) of stage III or IV occurring in more than one compartment within six months after surgery. All medical records identified during this process were then reviewed by a panel of urogynecology attendings and fellows to select patients who were truly clinical outliers. By this method we identified 10 patients (cases) who experienced early overt surgical failure. We also randomly selected 40 controls from our research database which includes greater than 500 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy during the same time period and had been objectively and subjectively assessed for ≥ 12 months with surgical success at ≥ 12 months that did not undergo prolapse re-operation or re-treatment. Demographics and peri-operative details were compared between cases and controls. Exclusion criteria for controls included use of other graft material besides polypropylene mesh, prior surgery for prolapse involving graft material, and conversion to laparotomy. DNA from the 10 cases and 40 controls was isolated from buccal swabs and genotyped on a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array that contains 250,000 markers (NspI 250K SNP array, Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA). All women in this study identified as Caucasian. All subjects provided written informed consent to study participation and data release. This was a case-control study approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Atlantic Health System in Morristown New Jersey (R11-10-004).

Dataset Information

Changing the Way We Manage Rectal Cancer-Standardizing TME from Open to Robotic (Including Laparoscopic).

Publications

Changing the Way We Manage Rectal Cancer-Standardizing TME from Open to Robotic (Including Laparoscopic).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure