Prospective Randomised Study: Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Resection

Rodríguez, R. M. Jiménez; Pavón, J. M. Díaz; Portilla, Fernando de la; Sillero, Emilio Prendes; Dussort, Jean Marie Hisnard Cadet; Padillo, Javier

doi:10.1016/j.cireng.2011.01.001

Cited by 43 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite this no difference was observed. It will be necessary to wait and see whether robotic or three‐dimensional laparoscopic surgery with enhanced vision of the pelvic area can reduce the incidence of LARS . So far, this has not been achieved by conventional laparoscopy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the interval from surgery to ileostomy closure a risk factor for low anterior resection syndrome?

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the interval from surgery to ileostomy closure a risk factor for low anterior resection syndrome?

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By screening the titles and abstracts, 484 studies were rejected. A full‐text evaluation helped identify seven studies that met the inclusion criteria . The publication year ranged from 2008 to 2018.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The assessment findings for the study quality and the risk for bias are represented in Figure . Five studies were classified as having a low risk of bias, and two studies were classified as having an unknown risk of bias. Using the GRADE system, the quality of evidence was rated as moderate for five studies and low for the remaining two studies …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…DDM was reported in five RCTs that involved 340 patients (RRCS, 162; LRCS: 178). Analysis of the pooled data from the five studies showed that RRCS was associated with a longer DDM in comparison with LRCS (MD: 0.83 cm, 95% CI, 0.29‐1.37, P = .003).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All seven studies reported on the number of HLNs. Analysis of the pooled data from these seven studies indicated that the two groups showed no significant difference with regard to the number of HLNs (MD: 0.87, 95% CI, −0.99 to 2.73, P = .36).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of pathological outcomes between robotic rectal cancer surgery and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta‐analysis based on seven randomized controlled trials

Liao

Zhao

Deng

et al. 2019

Robotics Computer Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the pathologic outcomes between robotic‐assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods Electronic databases were searched from their inception to 7 October 2018, for RCTs involving a comparison between RRCS and LRCS. Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), distance to the distal margin, proximal margin, the rate of complete mesorectal excision, and harvested lymph nodes were interesting of outcomes. Results The positive CRM, proximal margin, and rate of complete mesorectal excision were comparable between the two techniques. RRCS resulted in better outcomes for the distance to the distal margin (mean difference: 0.83 cm, 95% confidence interval, 0.29‐1.37, P = .003). Conclusions The pathologic outcomes associated with the two approaches were comparable, with RRCS showing better outcomes for the distance to the distal margin. However, additional well‐designed studies are needed to assess whether the benefits of pathologic outcomes improve survival outcomes.

show abstract

An early experience with the Senhance surgical robotic system in colorectal surgery: a single‐institute study

Lin

Huang

Lin

et al. 2020

Robotics Computer Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We present our initial single‐centre experience with Senhance surgical robot‐assisted colorectal surgery and examine its safety and feasibility. Methods From June 2019 to December 2019, patients who underwent Senhance surgical robot‐assisted colorectal surgery in our hospital were retrospectively analysed. We focused on the short‐term outcomes. Results In total, 46 patients were enrolled in the study. Colorectal cancer was the most common indication for surgery (39 patients). The median total operation time was 283 min, and the median blood loss was 50 cc. Meanwhile, the median number of harvested lymph nodes was 20. Elderly age, advanced American Society of Anaesthesiologists stage, and right‐sided colon surgery were associated with the occurrence of complications greater than grade III. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the Senhance surgical robotic system in colorectal surgery. Care should be taken regarding the indications and patient selection.

show abstract

Prospective Randomised Study: Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Resection

Cited by 43 publications

References 21 publications

Is the interval from surgery to ileostomy closure a risk factor for low anterior resection syndrome?

Is the interval from surgery to ileostomy closure a risk factor for low anterior resection syndrome?

Comparison of pathological outcomes between robotic rectal cancer surgery and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta‐analysis based on seven randomized controlled trials

An early experience with the Senhance surgical robotic system in colorectal surgery: a single‐institute study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About