Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Piozzi, Guglielmo Niccolò; Kim, Seon Hahn

doi:10.3393/ac.2021.00836.0119

Cited by 38 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Obviously, this is influenced by not subdividing the early rectal cancer to very early (T1 without poor prognostic factors, where local excision is sufficient). Selection by the respondents of organ-preserving and minimally invasive conservative treatment was possibly related to the fact that radical surgery is associated with a high percentage of postsurgical complications (3%-30% [33]) and organ dysfunction (defecation disorder up to 75%-90%, sexual dysfunction up to 50%, and urination dysfunction up to 30% [13,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]). Moreover, bowel dysfunction is a long-lasting issue [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Rectal cancer treatment has a wide range of possible approaches from radical extirpative surgery to nonoperative watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient. Methods: A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020. Results: One hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n = 65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n = 60, 36.8%) followed by local excision ± chemoradiotherapy if needed (n = 55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n = 65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons' age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons' inclination toward open approach. Conclusion: Our survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 ). Several studies have described technical issues of robotic ISR and shown acceptable perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of robotic ISR for low-lying rectal cancer patients [ 57 58 ]. However, there is a risk of worse anorectal functional outcomes, which can threaten the quality of life in some patients including those with very-low rectal cancer and those who have received radiotherapy.…”

Section: Extended Techniques In Robotic Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer

Ryu

Kim

2022

Ann Surg Treat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Utilization of robotic surgical systems has increased over the years. Robotic surgery is presumed to have advantages of enhanced visualization, improved dexterity, and reduced tremor, which is purported to be more suitable for rectal cancer surgery in a confined space than laparoscopic or open surgery. However, evidence supporting improved clinical and oncologic outcomes after robotic surgery remains controversial and limited despite the widespread adoption of robotic surgical systems. To date, numerous observational studies and a few randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate that short-term, oncological, and functional outcomes after a robotic surgery are superior to those of laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer patients. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on low-lying rectal cancer.

show abstract

“…The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [repository name e.g "figshare"] at http://doi. org/10.1002/ccr3.6356, reference number [ 9 ].…”

Section: Author Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of intraoperative fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green‐containing gauze in identifying the appropriate dissection layer in laparoscopic intersphincteric resection: A case report

Kumata

Onishi

Takayama

et al. 2022

Clinical Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Cited by 38 publications

References 93 publications

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment

Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer

Efficacy of intraoperative fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green‐containing gauze in identifying the appropriate dissection layer in laparoscopic intersphincteric resection: A case report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About