Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a technically demanding procedure. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic LPNDs. This multi-institutional retrospective study included 108 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic total mesorectal excision with LPND for locally advanced rectal cancer. There were 74 patients in the laparoscopic and 34 in the robotic groups. The median operation time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (353 vs. 275 min, p < 0.001). No patients underwent conversion to open surgery in either group. Pathological LPN metastases were observed in 24 and 8 patients in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.347). Although the number of harvested mesorectal lymph nodes was similar (15.5 vs. 15.0, p = 0.968), the number of harvested LPNs was higher in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (7.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.004). Postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were similar (robotic vs. laparoscopic, 35.3% and 7 days vs. 37.8% and 7 days, respectively). Both laparoscopic and robotic LPND are safe and feasible for locally advanced rectal cancers, but robotic LPND showed more harvested lateral lymph node than laparoscopic LPND.
We aimed to show that a standardized step-by-step robotic approach using surgical landmarks could make lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) less complicated. We performed robot-assisted LPND consisting of four steps using surgical landmarks. The first step is a dissection of uretero-hypogastric fascia, which envelopes the ureter and the hypogastric nerve. The second step is a dissection of the medial side of the external iliac vein located at the lateral border of the obturator LNs group. The third step is a dissection of the vesico-hypogastric fascia, which is at the medial border of the obturator LNs group. The final step is a dissection of the internal iliac artery until the Alcock's canal. Indocyanine green was injected just before surgery around the dentate line to identify the lateral pelvic LNs. Standardization using a robotic approach for LPND guided by surgical landmarks allows a safer and more effective surgery.
Purpose Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) reduces postoperative complications and shortens hospital stays. We aimed to describe the implementation and improvement of ERAS protocols in our institution through a multidisciplinary team approach. Methods A multidisciplinary team comprised of colorectal surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, pharmacists, nutritionists, and a performance improvement team was launched to develop the ERAS protocol. The ERAS protocol was followed in patients who underwent colonic and rectal surgery between January and November 2017. The ERAS protocol comprised 22 elements in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases. After the initial application, ERAS compliance was monitored and audited every 4–6 months and improvements made as necessary. Results The length of hospital stay significantly decreased after the application of the ERAS protocols for colon cancer in 2017 and 2018. And there was no significant difference in the duration of hospital stay after applying the rectal cancer ERAS protocol. Moreover, after starting the colon ERAS, there was a significant decrease in the complication rate. Since December 2017, there was a continuous increase in the colorectal ERAS clinical pathway application rate, which remained high (>90%). The patient compliance rate significantly increased between 2017 and 2018, but slightly decreased again in 2019. Conclusion The application and continual improvement of an ERAS protocol are crucial. Improving compliance may result in better clinical outcomes. Additionally, the basic guidelines of ERAS must be applied and developed according to each hospital’s situation based on the team approach.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.