Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Delaney, Conor P.; Lynch, A. C.; Senagore, Anthony J.; Fazio, Victor W.

doi:10.1007/bf02660768

Cited by 294 publications

(196 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

179

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several authors have reported good results with colorectal robotic surgery [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Our experience in terms of operative time, conversion rate, mortality, complications rate and length of stay are similar to those reported in the literature (Table 1).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Laparoscopic robotic-assisted gastrointestinal surgery: a Geneva experience

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The continuing development of robotic surgery supports its use in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. Our study retrospectively reviewed the surgical outcome and patient's satisfaction of gastrointestinal laparoscopic robotic procedures. From January 2003 to September 2007, 94 patients (27 women, 67 men) with a mean age of 53 years (range 19-84 years) underwent laparoscopic surgery with a da Vinci robotic system. There were 40 colorectal cases (43%), 31 anti-reXux surgery cases (33%) and 14 obesity surgery cases (15%); the remaining cases consisted of gastric and gallbladder surgery, intra-abdominal tumour excisions, and hepatic cyst resections. The majority of the cases (88, 94%) were performed for benign disease.The mean operative time was 153 min (range 60-330 min). One patient needed a blood transfusion. The mean body mass index was 25 (range 16-47). No death occurred. Five cases (5.3%) were converted to conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 3) or to laparotomy (n = 2). Morbidity consisted of one Nissen redo surgery to loosen a tight anti-reXux valve 6 days after robotic surgery, a robotic left ureter repair and pelvic haemorrhage following proctectomy requiring re-operation to control haemostasis and to remove pelvic haematoma. Mean follow-up time was 11 months (range 15 days to 34 months). One case of incisional trocar hernia needed re-operation. Overall patient's satisfaction was high: few scars were cheloïd, while functional surgical outcome was rated high by most of the patients. Our preliminary experience was encouraging, with minimal morbidity and very high acceptance by patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Laparoscopic robotic-assisted gastrointestinal surgery: a Geneva experience

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Magnified vision and improved dexterity helps in better vascular control than the open method. Various studies have noted similar operative blood loss ranging from 60 to 200 ml [10][11][12][13][14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The studies by Pigazzi et al and J. C. Kim et al noted a similar mean distal margin of 2.9 and 2.7 cm, respectively. [6,9,13,19,20] The superior visualization and precise sharp dissection are the core advantages which the surgeon appreciates by using the robotic system especially in locally advanced cancer patients who have received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The quality of the rectal cancer surgery can be measured by the evaluation of the mesorectal grade or the harvested lymph node number and autonomic nerve preservation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Robotic-Assisted Surgery with Traditional Laparotomy for Rectal Cancer—Indian Study

Somashekhar

Ashwin²,

Rajashekhar

et al. 2013

Indian J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rectal cancer is one of the common cancers in India. Surgical management is the mainstay of initial treatment for majority of patients. Minimally invasive surgery has gained acceptance for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer because, compared with laparotomy, it is associated with fewer complications, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety, feasibility, technique, and outcomes (postoperative, oncological, and functional) of robotic-assisted rectal surgery in comparison with open surgery in the Indian population. A prospective randomized study was undertaken from August 2011 to December 2012. Fifty patients who presented with rectal carcinoma were randomized to either robotic arm (RA) or open arm (OA) group. Both groups were matched for clinical stage and operation type. Technique and feasibility of roboticassisted surgery in terms of operating time, estimated blood loss, margins status, total number of lymph nodes retrieved, hospital stay, conversion to open procedure, complications, and functional outcomes were analyzed. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RA than in the OA group (310 vs 246 min, P <0.001) but was significantly reduced in the latter part of the robotic-assisted patients compared with the initial patients. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RA compared with the OA group (165.14 vs 406.04 ml, P <0.001). None of the patients had margin positivity. The mean distal resection margin was significantly longer in the RA than in the OA group (3.6 vs 2.4 cm, P < 0.001). A total of 100 % of patients in the RA group had complete mesorectal excision while two patients in the OA group had incomplete mesorectal excision. The average number of retrieved lymph nodes was adequate for accurate staging. The number of lymph nodes removed by robotic method is slightly higher than the open method (16.88 vs 15.20) but with no statistical significance. Conversion rate was nil. The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RA group (7.52 vs 13.24 days, P <0.001). Postoperative and functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Roboticassisted surgery is an emerging technique in our country. Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery is safe with low conversion rates and acceptable morbidity and is oncologically feasible.

show abstract

“…With this hybrid technique, our case can be finished within 240 min, which compares favourably with the mean operative time of 215 min in our previous report on laparoscopic-assisted abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer [19] . Table 2 summarises the published studies comparing telerobotic-assisted colorectal surgery using the da Vinci surgical system versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery [20][21][22][23] . In the largest comparative study to date, D'Annibale et al [21] compared 53 telerobotic-assisted with 53 conventional laparoscopic colorectal procedures, ranging from partial/total colectomies to abdominoperineal resections.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: Report of the first case in Hong Kong and China with an updated literature review

Lee²,

Yiu³

et al. 2007

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Telerobotic surgery is the most advanced development in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The da Vinci surgical system, which is currently the most widely used telerobotic device, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America for clinical use in all abdominal operations in July 2000. The first da Vinci surgical system in China was installed in November 2005 at our institution. We herein report the first telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using the 3-arm da Vinci surgical system for low rectal cancer in Hong Kong and China, which was performed in August 2006. The operative time and blood loss were 240 min and 200 mL, respectively. There was no complication, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day five. An updated review of published literature on telerobotic-assisted colorectal surgery is included in this report, with special emphasis on its advantages and limitations.

show abstract

Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Cited by 294 publications

References 19 publications

Laparoscopic robotic-assisted gastrointestinal surgery: a Geneva experience

Laparoscopic robotic-assisted gastrointestinal surgery: a Geneva experience

Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Robotic-Assisted Surgery with Traditional Laparotomy for Rectal Cancer—Indian Study

Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: Report of the first case in Hong Kong and China with an updated literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About