Dataset Information

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: Laparoscopic vs robotic surgery.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Feroci F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4814646 | biostudies-other | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: Laparoscopic vs robotic surgery.

Feroci Francesco F Vannucchi Andrea A Bianchi Paolo Pietro PP Cantafio Stefano S Garzi Alessia A Formisano Giampaolo G Scatizzi Marco M

World journal of gastroenterology 20160401 13

<h4>Aim</h4>To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>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 sta ...[more]

PMID: 27053852

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive total mesorectal excision (MiTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular trends in mid and low rectal cancer. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MiTME and TaTME of mid and low-rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of MiTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.MethodsWe have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on MiTME (robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision) and TaTME (transanal total mesorectal excision). We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374141).ResultsThere are 11010 patients including 39 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent MiTME had no statistical difference in operation time (SMD -0.14; CI -0.31 to 0.33; I2=84.7%, P=0.116), estimated blood loss (SMD 0.05; CI -0.05 to 0.14; I2=48%, P=0.338), postoperative hospital stay (RR 0.08; CI -0.07 to 0.22; I2=0%, P=0.308), over complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.88 to 1.08; I2=25.4%, P=0.644), intraoperative complications (RR 0.94; CI 0.69 to 1.29; I2=31.1%, P=0.712), postoperative complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.87 to 1.11; I2=16.1%, P=0.789), anastomotic stenosis (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2=7.4%, P=0.564), wound infection (RR 1.08; CI 0.65 to 1.81; I2=1.9%, P=0.755), circumferential resection margin (RR 1.10; CI 0.91 to 1.34; I2=0%, P=0.322), distal resection margin (RR 1.49; CI 0.73 to 3.05; I2=0%, P=0.272), major low anterior resection syndrome (RR 0.93; CI 0.79 to 1.10; I2=0%, P=0.386), lymph node yield (SMD 0.06; CI -0.04 to 0.17; I2=39.6%, P=0.249), 2-year DFS rate (RR 0.99; CI 0.88 to 1.11; I2=0%, P = 0.816), 2-year OS rate (RR 1.00; CI 0.90 to 1.11; I2=0%, P = 0.969), distant metastasis rate (RR 0.47; CI 0.17 to 1.29; I2=0%, P = 0.143), and local recurrence rate (RR 1.49; CI 0.75 to 2.97; I2=0%, P = 0.250). However, patients who underwent MiTME had fewer anastomotic leak rates (SMD -0.38; CI -0.59 to -0.17; I2=19.0%, P<0.0001).ConclusionThis study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of MiTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid to low-rectal cancer through meta-analysis. There is no difference between the two except for patients with MiTME who have a lower anastomotic leakage rate, which provides some evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.

Project description:BackgroundTotal mesorectal excision (TME), represents a key technique in radical surgery for rectal cancer. This study aimed to construct a preoperative nomogram for predicting the surgical difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) and to investigate whether there were potential benefits of robotic TME (R-TME) for patients with technically challenging rectal cancer.MethodsConsecutive mid-low rectal cancer patients receiving total mesorectal excision were included. A preoperative nomogram to predict the surgical difficulty of L-TME was established and validated. Patients with technically challenging rectal cancer were screened by calculating the prediction score of the nomogram. Then patients with technically challenging rectal cancer who underwent different types of surgery, R-TME or L-TME, were analyzed for comparison.ResultsA total of 533 consecutive patients with mid-low rectal cancer who underwent TME at a single tertiary medical center between January 2018 and January 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that mesorectal fat area, intertuberous distance, tumor size, and tumor height were independent risk factors for surgical difficulty. Subsequently, these variables were used to construct the nomogram model to predict the surgical difficulty of L-TME. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the nomogram was 0.827 (95% CI 0.745 - 0.909) and 0.809 (95% CI 0.674- 0.944) in the training and validation cohort, respectively. For patients with technically challenging rectal cancer, R-TME was associated with a lower diverting ileostomy rate (p = 0.003), less estimated blood loss (p < 0.043), shorter procedure time (p = 0.009) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.037).ConclusionIn this study, we established a preoperative nomogram to predict the surgical difficulty of L-TME. Furthermore, this study also indicated that R-TME has potential technical advantages for patients with technically challenging rectal cancer.

Dataset Information

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: Laparoscopic vs robotic surgery.

Publications

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: Laparoscopic vs robotic surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets