Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer: Short-Term Outcome of a Prospective Comparative Study

Background

The aim of this study is to compare the short-term results between robotic-assisted low anterior resection (R-LAR), using the da Vinci^® Surgical System, and standard laparoscopic low anterior resection (L-LAR) in rectal cancer patients.

Methods

113 patients were assigned to receive either R-LAR (n = 56) or L-LAR (n = 57) between April 2006 and September 2007. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, complications, and pathologic details were compared between the groups. Moreover, macroscopic grading of the specimen was evaluated.

Results

Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups. The mean operation time was 190.1 ± 45.0 min in the R-LAR group and 191.1 ± 65.3 min in the L-LAR group (P = 0.924). The conversion rate was 0.0% in the R-LAR groups and 10.5% in the L-LAR group (P = 0.013). The serious complication rate was 5.4% in the R-LAR group and 19.3% in the L-LAR group (P = 0.025). The specimen quality was acceptable in both groups. However, the mesorectal grade was complete (n = 52) and nearly complete (n = 4) in the R-LAR group and complete (n = 43), nearly complete (n = 12), and incomplete (n = 2) in the L-LAR group (P = 0.033).

Conclusion

R-LAR was performed safely and effectively, using the da Vinci^® Surgical System. The use of the system resulted in acceptable perioperative outcomes compared to L-LAR.     

Outcome of Tumor-Specific Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: The Impact of Laparoscopic Resection

Objective

The study aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer in 1,063 consecutive cases in a single center.

Methods

We performed an analysis of 11 years of experience in rectal cancer surgery and compared the outcome of laparoscopic and open surgery. Multivariate and subgroup analysis was performed to look at the effect of the level of tumor and stage of disease on short-term outcomes like conversion rate, anastomotic leak rate, length of stay, complication rate, 30-day mortality, and long-term outcomes like local recurrence and survival.

Results

A total of 1,063 patients underwent rectal resection with 470 (44.2 %) patients undergoing the laparoscopic approach. Groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, or co-morbidities, and the operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group (210 vs. 150 min; p value < 0.001). A conversion rate of 6.8 % was noted, with an anastomotic leak rate of 3.87 % in the open group and 2.97 % in the laparoscopic group. The laparoscopic group had a lower blood loss (100 vs. 350 ml; p < 0.001), lower complication rates, and shorter length of stay (6 vs. 9 days). The local recurrence rate was comparable, and the laparoscopic approach had better overall and cancer-specific survival, even after adjusting for stages. The laparoscopic approach was an independent factor associated with better overall and cancer-specific survival on multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

We confirmed the oncological safety of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic surgery also showed superiority in the short-term and long-term outcomes of rectal cancer.     

Laparoscopic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Review

Despite increasing evidence on the success of laparoscopic resection in colorectal diseases, clinicians remain skeptical about the application of laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer, although it may benefit patients by resulting in early return of bowel function, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stay. Rectal cancer surgery has been regarded as a technically demanding procedure. Deviation from the oncologic principle of mesrectal dissection will lead to a higher local recurrence rate. Therefore, rectal cancer was not included in earlier studies on laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer. However, many colorectal surgeons who practice laparoscopic surgery soon appreciated that the improved optics of laparoscopy can provide a much better view of the pelvis, and the Heald principle of meticulous sharp dissection for total mesorectal excision could be performed without compromise. In recent years, there has been increasing number of reports on laparoscopic resection of rectal cancers. Apart from the issues on postoperative outcomes and long-term results, laparoscopic resection has generated interest in its impact on the preservation of sexual and bladder function. We summarize the current evidence on laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.     

腹腔镜直肠癌手术的手术方式选择探讨

目的:探讨腹腔镜直肠癌根治术的手术方式选择。方法:回顾性分析2002年11月至2005年11月间施行的88例腹腔镜直肠癌手术,包括中转率、手术要点和并发症率等。结果:本组中转开腹7例(8.0%)。88例中经腹腔镜前切除吻合40例,经腹腔镜肛管根治性切除乙状结肠肛管吻合14例,经腹腔镜腹会阴联合切除术33例,1例因合并3度会阴撕裂伤行经腹腔镜Hartmann手术。无术中并发症及手术死亡,术后并发症8例,5例为出血并发症。结论:腹腔镜直肠癌手术安全、有效,但应个体化选择手术方式。     

Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Background  

Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation is helpful in the management of patients with low rectal cancer. With the advent of this technique, the need for performance of abdominoperineal resection seems to have decreased in patients with very low rectal tumors. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility, the functional outcome, and the short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic ISR for low rectal adenocarcinoma at our institution.     

腹腔镜直肠癌手术中转开腹对术后恢复的影响

目的 分析腹腔镜直肠癌根治术(LRR)中转开腹手术对患者术后恢复的影响.方法 回顾性分析深圳市人民医院胃肠外科2003年2月至2007年2月期间行LRR的病例208例,其中腹腔镜中转开腹手术(CRR)32例,与同期59例开腹直肠癌根治手术(ORR)和176例成功施行LRR比较,分析手术时间、术后住院时间、住院费用、术中出血量、肠功能恢复时间及并发症发生率情况.结果 3种手术方式之间的手术时间、术后住院时间、术中出血量和肠功能恢复时间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05); CRR和LRR的住院费用明显要高于ORR(P=0.001,P=0.001),而CRR和LRR之间住院费用差异无统计学意义(P=0.843),但ORR的术后并发症发生率要高于CRR和LRR(P=0.023,P=0.004).结论 LRR虽然具有一定的中转开腹手术率,但与ORR相比,CRR并不会影响患者术后恢复,只是手术费用会增加.     

Comparison of Outcome of Open and Laparoscopic Resection for Stage II and Stage III Rectal Cancer

Background  Laparoscopic resection for advanced rectal cancer has not been widely accepted, and there are only few studies with survival data. This study aimed to compare the survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic and open resection for stage II and III rectal cancer. Materials and Methods  Consecutive patients (open resection: n = 310; laparoscopic resection: n = 111) who underwent curative resection for stage II and III rectal cancer from June 2000 to December 2006 were included. The operative details, postoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, and survival data were collected prospectively. Comparison was made between patients who had laparoscopic and open surgery. Results  The age, gender, medical morbidity, types of operation, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status were similar between the two groups. There was also no difference in the mortality, morbidity, and pathological staging. Laparoscopic resection was associated with significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. With the median follow-up of 34 months, there was no difference in local recurrence rates. The 5-year actuarial survivals were 71.1% and 59.3% in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (P = .029). In the multivariate analysis, laparoscopic resection was one of the independent significant factors associated with better survival (P = .03, hazards ratio: 0.558, 95% confidence interval: 0.339–0.969). Other independent poor prognostic factors included lymph node metastasis, poor differentiation, perineural invasion, presence of postoperative complications, and no chemotherapy. Conclusions  Laparoscopic resection for locally advanced rectal cancer is associated with more favorable overall survival when compared with open resection.     

Short- and Medium-Term Outcome of Robot-Assisted and Traditional Laparoscopic Rectal Resection

Background:

Traditional laparoscopic anterior rectal resection (TLAR) has recently been used for rectal cancer, offering good functional results compared with open anterior resection and resulting in a better postoperative early outcome. However, laparoscopic rectal resection can be technically demanding, especially when a total mesorectal excision is required. The aim of this study was to verify whether robot-assisted anterior rectal resection (RLAR) could overcome limitations of the laparoscopic approach.

Methods:

Sixty-six patients with rectal cancer were enrolled in the study. Twenty-nine patients underwent RLAR and 37 TLAR. Groups were matched for age, BMI, sex ratio, ASA status, and TNM stage, and were followed up for a mean time of 12 months.

Results:

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectal resection results in shorter operative time when a total mesorectal excision is performed (165.9±10 vs 210±37 minutes; P<0.05). The conversion rate is significantly lower for RLAR (P<0.05). Postoperative morbidity was comparable between groups. Overall survival and disease-free survival were comparable between groups, even though a trend towards better disease-free survival in the RLAR group was observed.

Conclusion:

RLAR is a safe and feasible procedure that facilitates laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. Randomized clinical trials and longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate a possible influence of RLAR on patient survival.     

腹腔镜切除低位直肠癌的临床应用

目的探讨腹腔镜切除低位直肠癌的可行性。方法回顾性分析2003年4月-2007年4月间采用腹腔镜根治性切除45例低位直肠癌的临床资料。结果术后发生输尿管损伤和骶前出血各1例,无手术死亡病例。结论在严格掌握手术指征的前提下,行腹腔镜切除低位直肠癌是安全可行的。     

Oncologic Outcome of Intersphincteric Resection for Very Low Rectal Cancer

Background  In 2000 we launched a prospective program of intersphincteric resection (ISR) for very low rectal cancer. In this study we compared the oncologic outcome of patients who underwent ISR with the outcome of patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR). Methods  The data of 202 patients with very low rectal cancer who underwent curative ISR (n = 132) or curative APR (n = 70) between 1995 and 2006 were analyzed. Patients were divided into ISR and APR groups. Survival and local recurrence were investigated in both groups. Results  The median follow-up was 40 months in the ISR group and 57 months in the APR group. The 5-year local relapse-free survival rate was 83% in the ISR group and 80% in the APR group (p = 0.364), and the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 69% in the ISR group and 63% in the APR group (p = 0.714). Conclusions  For very low rectal cancers, ISR appears to be oncologically acceptable and can reduce the number of APRs.     

体质量指数对内括约肌切除术治疗直肠癌和肛管癌近期疗效的影响

目的探讨体质量指数（body mass index,BMI）对内括约肌切除术（intersphincteric resection,ISR）治疗直肠癌和肛管癌近期疗效的影响。方法回顾性分析2009年1月至2011年12月期间四川大学华西医院胃肠外科中心结直肠外科专业组收治的199例行ISR术的直肠癌和肛管癌患者的临床资料,按BMI值将其分为消瘦组（n=23）、正常组（n=114）及超重组（n=62）,比较3组患者的临床近期疗效。结果术后早期康复方面,3组患者的首次排气时间、首次排便时间、首次下床活动时间、首次经口进食时间及术后住院时间比较差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。管道管理方面,3组患者拔除引流管时间比较差异有统计学意义,正常组和超重组拔除引流管的时间较长（P〈0.05）,而拔除胃管和尿管时间的差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。3组患者术后并发症（包括吻合口漏、吻合口出血、肛周感染、肠梗阻、胃潴留、尿潴留、败血症、伤口感染及直肠阴道瘘）发生率比较差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论 BMI对ISR治疗直肠癌和肛管癌近期疗效的影响较小,肥胖不会提高术后并发症的发生率;在适当管理模式的配合下,也不会影响术后早期康复指标。     

经肛门取出手术标本的腹腔镜直肠癌切除术

目的探讨经肛门取出手术标本的腹腔镜直肠癌切除术的围术期安全性、临床应用的可行性及优势。方法回顾性分析2010年1月~2012年5月我院普外科行经肛门取出标本的腹腔镜直肠癌根治术的21例患者的临床资料,探讨经肛门取出手术标本的腹腔镜直肠癌切除术的围手术期疗效及随访疗效。结果所有21例均在腹腔镜辅助下完成手术,无中转开腹。手术平均时间为151(110~180)min,平均失血60(50~100)ml,术中无直肠破裂、脏器副损伤等并发症,术后未见切口感染、吻合口出血、吻合口漏、吻合口狭窄、腹腔脓肿等严重并发症。术后平均住院9(7~12)d,无围手术期相关死亡。术后病理检查平均清扫淋巴结12(10~17)枚,无切缘阳性病例。1例术中出现吻合口裂开,行裂口修补,末端回肠造瘘,术后8周回纳。所有患者术后3个月排便控便功能均恢复良好。均获6~36个月随访,未见复发。结论经肛门取出标本的腹腔镜直肠癌切除术是安全可行的,能同时降低直肠低位横断的难度,创伤更小,恢复更快。     

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Very Low Rectal Cancer

Background

Laparoscopic surgery has been reported to be one of the approaches for total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer surgery. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been reported as a promising method for sphincter-preserving operation in selected patients with very low rectal cancer.

Methods

From July 2005 to December 2008, 35 patients with very low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic TME with ISR. The results were compared retrospectively with those of previous open TME with ISR.

Results

Conversion to open surgery was necessary in one (3%) patient. The median operation time was 293 min and median estimated blood loss was 40 ml. The pelvic plexus was completely preserved in 32 patients. There was no mortality. Postoperative complications occurred in three (9%) patients. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 17 days. Macroscopic complete mesorectal excision was achieved in all cases. Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 34 patients. Clinical lymph node stage, operation time, and blood loss were significantly different between the laparoscopic group and open group, but the differences of other factors were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic TME with ISR is technically feasible and a safe alternative to laparotomy with favorable short-term postoperative outcomes.     

经腹腔镜经肛门括约肌间直肠切除结肠肛管吻合术治疗超低位直肠癌13例

目的 探讨经腹腔镜经肛门括约肌间直肠切除结肠肛管吻合术对超低位直肠癌保肛手术的治疗效果.方法 从2005年6月到2007年12月期间对13例患者施行该手术.其中男8例,女5例,平均年龄53岁(41～69岁).肿瘤距离肛缘均小于5 cm.结果 13例手术全部成功,无手术死亡,无吻合口漏发生.随访时间为1～30个月,平均随访17个月,1例盆腔复发,1例肝转移;无戳孔种植转移,术后6个月肛门括约肌功能达优良者9例.结论 经腹腔镜经肛门括约肌间直肠切除结肠肛管吻合术是治疗超低位直肠癌的一种微创、安全、疗效可靠、肛门括约肌功能满意的较理想保肛手术.     

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

Purpose  

The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes and surgical quality of robot-assisted (RAP) and laparoscopic (LAP) total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low rectal cancer.     

Trocar悬吊式免气腹腹腔镜下行直肠癌根治术的体会

目的探讨Trocar悬吊式免气腹腹腔镜下直肠癌根治术的可行性及特点。方法分析22例在全麻下应用腹壁悬吊装置实施Trocar悬吊式免气腹腹腔镜直肠癌根治术(其中Dixon18例,Miles术4例)治疗的直肠癌患者的临床资料。所有患者术前均根据MRI分期,其中T1 5例,T2 12例,T3 5例;均为N0M0。结果 22例患者均手术成功,平均总手术时间为(140.2±12.4)min,腹腔镜下操作时间为(109.3±6.4)min,术后未出现并发症。平均住院时间(9.8±1.2)d,术后病理:切缘均无癌残留,平均淋巴结清扫数目为(15.2±2.8)枚。随访8~20个月未出现肿瘤复发及转移。结论Trocar悬吊式免气腹腹腔镜下直肠癌根治术在技术上是可行的、安全的,可避免气腹对人体的影响,值得临床推广。     

肥胖对男性直肠癌腹腔镜低位前切除手术的影响

目的探讨肥胖对男性直肠癌腹腔镜低位前切除术(laparoscopic low anterior resection,Lap-LAR)的影响。方法回顾性分析2014年3月~2017年8月91例男性直肠癌Lap-LAR的临床资料,以BMI≥28作为肥胖标准,肥胖组29例,非肥胖组62例。比较2组围手术期指标、术后病理指标和术后生存情况。结果2组Lap-LAR均顺利完成,均无中转开腹。对比非肥胖组,肥胖组手术时间较长[(149.0±27.2)min vs.(120.6±23.8)min,t=5.053,P=0.000],术中失血较多[(155.2±54.0)ml vs.(116.1±54.1)ml,t=3.177,P=0.002],术后排气较晚[(3.0±0.8)d vs.(2.4±1.0)d,t=3.113,P=0.003],术后住院时间较长[(9.7±4.5)d vs.(7.8±2.8)d,t=2.129,P=0.040],2组术后并发症发生率、病理完全缓解率、淋巴结检出数、淋巴结转移率、淋巴结转移数、肿瘤TNM分期差异均无显著性(P>0.05)。肥胖组术后随访8~59个月(中位数39.0月),非肥胖组术后随访9~60个月(中位数39.5月),2组累积生存率差异无显著性(log-rankχ^2=0.495,P=0.482)。结论肥胖的男性患者由于过多的脂肪填充,会增加Lap-LAR操作的难度。较之非肥胖患者,肥胖者术后恢复较慢,但术后生存情况无明显差异。     

全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌的近远期临床疗效观察

目的探究全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌的近远期临床效果。方法采用随机数字法将2011年5月至2013年2月期间收治的64例直肠癌患者分成传统术式组和系膜切除术组(每组各32例患者),其中传统术式组患者的手术方案为传统术式治疗直肠癌,系膜切除术组患者的手术方案为全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌。采用SPSS 18.0统计软件进行统计分析,两组患者在手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间及胃肠道功能恢复时间的计量资料采用均数±标准差(±s)表示,组间比较用独立样本t检验;并发症发生率、癌症复发率及3年生存率的计数资料采用χ2检验,检验水准为0.05。结果在手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间及胃肠道功能恢复时间方面传统术式组患者分别为(175.5±57.6)min、(134.7±40.5)ml、(15.1±4.8)d、(87.1±23.5)h;系膜切除术组分别为(125.6±40.1)min、(91.2±34.9)ml、(9.4±4.1)d、(50.6±18.3)h,两组差异均具有统计学意义(P0.05);传统术式组患者的并发症发生率为25.00%(8/32),系膜切除术组患者的并发症发生率为6.25%(2/32),两组差异具有统计学意义(χ2=4.27,P0.05);传统术式组患者的癌症复发率及3年生存率分别为18.75%、65.63%,系膜切除术组患者的癌症复发率及3年生存率分别为3.13%、93.75%,两组差异均具有统计学意义(χ2=4.01、7.81,P0.05)。结论全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌具有良好的近远期临床疗效,可以减少手术、住院时间及术中出血量,能降低并发症发生率及癌症复发率,提高患者的生存率,适合临床推广。