机器人与腹腔镜在低位直肠癌经括约肌间切除术的近期疗效对比

目的比较机器人和腹腔镜在低位直肠癌经括约肌间切除术的近期疗效,探讨机器人经括约肌间切除术的安全性及可行性。 方法回顾性分析2015年10月至2017年10月甘肃省人民医院肛肠科确诊为低位直肠癌并行机器人或者腹腔镜经括约肌间切除患者的人口及临床资料。收集并比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、中转开腹率、首次通气时间、术后住院时间、并发症、肿瘤距远切缘的距离、环周切缘的阳性数、清扫淋巴结数量等。 结果机器人组流质饮食时间、首次通气时间、术后住院时间较腹腔镜组短（均P<0.05）;机器人组术中失血量多于腹腔镜组（P<0.05）;机器人与腹腔镜组在手术时间上差异无统计学意义,两组的术后并发症的差异无统计学意义,机器人组的总费用高于腹腔镜组（P<0.001）。 结论机器人低位直肠癌经括约肌间切除术是安全、可行的。与腹腔镜组手术相比,机器人组术后肠功能恢复快,住院时间短,近期肿瘤学的结果安全可靠,可作为低位直肠癌治疗的有效手段之一。     

Clinical outcome of intersphincteric resection for ultra-low rectal cancer

AIM:To analyze oncological outcome of intersphinctericresection(ISR)in ultra-low rectal cancer with intent tospare colostoma.METHODS:From 1995 to 1998,patients with a non-fixed rectal adenocarcinoma(tumor stage T2)preserving thelower margin at 1-3 cm above the dentate line withoutdistant metastasis was enrolled(period Ⅰ).ISR was prac-ticed in eight patients,and their postoperative follow-up was at least 5 years.In addition,from 1999 to 2003,another 10 patients having the same tumor locationas period Ⅰ underwent ISR(period Ⅱ).Among those,6patients with T3-4-staged tumor received preoperativechemoradiotherapy.RESULTS:All patients received ISR with curative inten-tion and no postoperative mortality.In these case seriesat period Ⅰ,local recurrence rate was 12.5% and me-tastasis rate 25.0%;the 5-year survival rate was 87.5%and disease-free survival rate 75.0%.There was no localrecurrence or distant metastases in 10 patients with amedian follow-up of 30(range,18-47)mo at period Ⅱ.CONCLUSION:As to ultra-low rectal cancer,inter-sphincteric resection could provide acceptable localcontrol and cancer-related survival with no permanentstoma in early-staged tumor(tumor stage T2);more-over,preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy wouldmake ISR feasible with surgical curative intent in moreadvanced tumors(tumor stages T3-4).     

The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery using a propensity score analysis

Purpose

The aim of this study is to clarify the short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer in a retrospective study.

Methods

The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery (n?=?130) were retrospectively compared to open (n?=?234) and laparoscopic surgery (n?=?318) by a propensity score analysis.

Results

Robotic surgery was performed more frequently for patients with lower rectal cancer (55%) than open (30%, p?<?0.0001) or laparoscopic surgery (36%, p?<?0.0001). None of the robotic surgery cases were converted to open surgery. After propensity score matching, robotic surgery was found to be associated with a longer operation time (342 vs. 230 min, p?<?0.0001) and less blood loss (7 vs. 420 mL, p?<?0.0001) than open surgery. The overall complication rate of robotic surgery was lower than that of open surgery (13 vs. 28%, p?=?0.032). Robotic surgery was associated with a lower incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) than laparoscopic surgery (0 vs. 7%, p?=?0.028). There were no cases of anastomotic leakage after robotic surgery. The circumferential resection margin was involved in 0.8% of the patients who underwent robotic surgery; the incidence did not differ among the treatment groups.

Conclusions

Although robotic surgery for rectal cancer was associated with a longer operation time, it was associated with a very low incidence of SSIs. The degree of safety was comparable to both open and laparoscopic surgery.

     

Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Few studies have compared robotic and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) in rectal cancer. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of recently published studies to compare perioperative outcomes of ISR for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic ISR in patients with low rectal cancer. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Perioperative outcomes of interest included the rate of diverting stoma, open conversion rate, operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, and time to initiate the postoperative diet. Oncological outcomes included the number of retrieved lymph nodes, distal resection margin, proximal resection margin, circumferential resection margin, 3-year overall survival, 3-year disease-free survival, and local recurrence. Postoperative complications included overall complications, a Dindo-Clavien classification ≥ III, and anastomotic leakage. All outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

We included 5 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 510 patients undergoing 273 (53.5%) robotic ISR procedures and 237 (46.5%) laparoscopic ISR procedures. The robotic ISR group lower conversion rate, lower blood loss, and longer operation times than the laparoscopic group. We also noted that fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the robotic ISR group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Other outcomes were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

Robotic and laparoscopic ISR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and 3-year oncologic outcomes; however, robotic ISR was associated with a lower conversion rate and less blood loss despite longer operation times compared to laparoscopic ISR. These findings suggest that robotic ISR maybe a safe and effective technique for treating low rectal cancer in selected patients. The potential oncologic and functional benefits of robotic ISR should be evaluated in larger randomized controlled trials.

     

内括约肌切除术在低位直肠癌保肛中的应用

直肠癌是我国最常见的消化道恶性肿瘤之一,且以中低位多见,对于距肛门低于5 cm的低位直肠癌,过去常规行腹会阴联合切除术（APR）,不仅手术创伤大,而且永久性造口也为患者生理和心理带来极大的痛苦。近年来随着对直肠癌特点的深入认识、术前新辅助治疗的开展及手术器械和术者技术的发展,在肿瘤根治的前提下,吻合口的位置也不断地向更低的位置挑战,功能保护和改善术后生活质量已成为低位直肠癌治疗的重要目标。内括约肌切除术（ISR）为低位直肠癌患者带来了更多保肛的机会,并且其根治效果及肛门功能皆令人满意。本文将对ISR的研究现状及进展、肿瘤学和功能预后等作一综述。     

Robot-assisted intersphincteric resection facilitates an efficient sphincter-saving in patients with low rectal cancer

Purpose

Few investigations of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection (ISR) are presently available to support this procedure as a safe and efficient procedure. We aimed to evaluate the utility of robot-assisted ISR by comparison between ISR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) using both robot-assisted and open approaches.

Methods

The 558 patients with lower rectal cancer (LRC) who underwent curative operation was enrolled between July 2010 and June 2015 to perform either by robot-assisted (ISR vs. APR = 310 vs. 34) or open approaches (144 vs. 70). Perioperative and functional outcomes including urogenital and anorectal dysfunctions were measured. Recurrence and survival were examined in 216 patients in which >3 years had elapsed after the operation.

Results

The robot-assisted approach was the most significant parameter to determine ISR achievement among potent parameters (OR = 3.467, 95% CI = 2.095–5.738, p < 0.001). Early surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open ISR group (16 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.01). The voiding and male sexual dysfunctions were significantly more frequent in the open ISR (p < 0.05). The fecal incontinence and lifestyle alteration score was greater in the open ISR than in the robot-assisted ISR at 12 and 24 months, respectively (p < 0.05). However, the 3-year cumulative rates of local recurrence and survival did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusions

The current procedure of robot-assisted ISR replaced a significant portion of APR to achieve successful SSO via mostly transabdominal approach and double-stapled anastomosis. The robot-assisted ISR with minimal invasiveness might be a help to reduce anorectal and urogenital dysfunctions.

     

直接手助腹腔镜与开腹直肠癌根治的疗效比较

目的:探讨应用直接手助腹腔镜下直肠癌根治的可行性及近期临床疗效.方法:将我院2005-01/2007-01同期收治的直肠癌患者分为腹腔镜和传统开腹组各31例进行相应手术,对其临床资料进行回顾性分析.结果:腹腔镜组无1例中转开腹.腹腔镜组与开腹组相比,术中平均出血量(150±42.5 mL vs 250±34.6 mL,P<0.05)、肠道功能恢复时间(2±1.0 d vs 4±1.0 d,P<0.05)、术后并发症发生率(3.2% vs 12.9%,P<0.05)均有显著差异,而手术时间、局部复发率及在淋巴结清扫范围方面无显著差异(P>0.05).结论:直接手助腹腔镜治疗直肠癌能取得与开腹手术同样的肿瘤根治性效果,并具有出血少、术后肠功能恢复快等优点.     

Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs

Introduction

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery offers multiple advantages for surgeons, and it seems to yield the same clinical outcomes as regards the short-time follow-up of patients compared to conventional laparoscopy. This surgical approach emerges as a technique aiming at overcoming the limitations posed by rectal cancer and other surgical fields of difficult access, in order to obtain better outcomes and a shorter learning curve.

Material and methods

A systematic review of the literature of robot-assisted rectal surgery was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in October 2015 in PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for articles published in the last 10 years and pertaining the learning curve of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. It consisted of the following key words: “rectal cancer/learning curve/robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery”.

Results

A total of 34 references were identified, but only 9 full texts specifically addressed the analysis of the learning curve in robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery, 7 were case series and 2 were non-randomised case-comparison series. Eight papers used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, and only one author divided the series into two groups to compare both. The mean number of cases for phase I of the learning curve was calculated to be 29.7 patients; phase II corresponds to a mean number 37.4 patients. The mean number of cases required for the surgeon to be classed as an expert in robotic surgery was calculated to be 39 patients.

Conclusion

Robotic advantages could have an impact on learning curve for rectal cancer and lower the number of cases that are necessary for rectal resections.

     

Comparative analysis of learning curve in complex robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection

Background

There is no comparative analysis of the learning curves for robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to compare learning curves in complex robotic and conventional laparoscopic liver resections with regards to estimation of the difficulty index score.

生物反馈训练可以提高超低位直肠癌内括约肌切除术后的排便功能

目的:研究生物反馈技术是否可以提高超低位直肠癌内括约肌切除术后的排便功能．方法:对16例内括约肌切除术后的患者进行生物反馈治疗,分别应用Vaizey和Wexne晰分及直肠肛管向量测压技术来评价生物反馈的效果．结果:生物反馈治疗后Vaizey和Wexner评分显著降低(6．4 vs 8．6,P<0．001;5．4 vs 7．2, P<0．001),最大收缩压(mmHg)及收缩向量容积[cm×(mmHg)2]均显著性提高(205．6±44．5 vs 143．6±46．5,P<0．001:50 664．6±8040．1 vs 13 337．0±7491．1,P<0．000,静息及收缩时的不均衡指数均显著降低(46．8±7．5 vs 58．3±7．4,P<0．001;29．9±6．7 vs 38．3±7．2,P<0．001),直肠肛管反射的阳性率也由训练前的6．3％提高至31.3％．结论:内括约肌切除术后肛管最大压力及向量容积下降,生物反馈技术可以改善部分的排便功能,可以作为提高超低位直肠癌内括约肌切除术后肛门括约肌功能的方法．     

Totally robotic single docking low anterior resection for rectal cancer: pearls and pitfalls

Total robotic resection of mid- and low rectal cancers confers technical advantages within the confines of the pelvis and allows difficult rectal cancer cases to be performed efficiently with less risk of conversion to open. To maximize the advantage of robotic surgery, we utilize the technique of single docking totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer for both the Da Vinci Si and Xi Surgical Systems. All steps are performed robotically, with the surgery divided into two phases. The first phase consists of inferior mesenteric artery and vein ligation, sigmoid and descending colon mobilization and splenic flexure takedown. Phase two is rectal dissection and pelvic total mesorectal excision. In this article, which is complemented by a video, we describe in detail our surgical technique for totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer using a standardized ‘medial to lateral’ approach with emphasis on the pearls and pitfalls of this surgery.     

Colonic prolapse after intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: a report of 12 cases

Background

There are no published data concerning management of patients with exteriorized colonic prolapse (CP) after intersphincteric rectal resection (ISR) and side-to-end coloanal manual anastomosis (CAA) for very low rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to report our experience in 12 consecutive cases of CP following ISR with CAA.

Methods

From 2006 to 2014, all patients with very low rectal cancer who developed CP after ISR and CAA were reviewed. Demographic and surgical data, prolapse symptoms and treatment were recorded. Postoperative morbidity, functional outcomes and results after prolapse surgery were recorded.

Results

Twelve out of 143 patients (8 %) who underwent ISR with side-to-end CAA for low rectal cancer presented CP: 7/107 ISR (7 %) with partial resection of the internal anal sphincter (IAS) and 5/36 ISR (14 %) with subtotal or total resection of the IAS (NS). CP was diagnosed after a median of 6 months (range 2–72 months) after ISR. All patients with CP suffered from pain and fecal incontinence. Median Wexner fecal incontinence score before surgery was 16.5 (range 12–20). Three patients refused reoperation. Nine patients underwent transanal surgery with prolapse resection (including colonic stump and side-to-end anastomosis) and new end-to-end CAA (with posterior myorraphy in 4 cases). After a median follow-up of 30 months (range 8–87 months), 3/9 patients (33 %) had CP recurrence: One with very poor function was treated by abdominoperineal resection and definitive stoma. The 2 others were successfully reoperated on transanally. Median Wexner fecal incontinence score after CP surgery was 9 (range 0–20). No CP recurrence was noted for the 6 other patients, and function improved in all cases. Thus, at the end of follow-up, 8/9 patients (89 %) had no recurrence after surgery.

Conclusions

We believe surgery must be attempted in these patients who develop CP after ISR with CAA for very low rectal cancer in order to improve function and symptoms. A transanal approach with CP resection and new end-to-end anastomosis appeared to be safe and effective. Larger studies are needed to confirm our results.

     

Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer:current status and perspectives

The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition threedimensional vision, it translates the surgeon's hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors' centre.     

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs robotic surgery

AIM: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision(TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014(robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage?Ⅰ-Ⅲ disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.RESULTS: Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME(L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME(R-TME)(P 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. Thepatients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients(8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group(18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients(1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.CONCLUSION: Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.     

低位直肠癌患者使用直肠拖出切除吻合术的临床优势

目的探讨低位直肠癌患者使用直肠拖出切除吻合术的临床优势,为该手术的临床应用提供理论支持。 方法对重庆市人民医院36例低位直肠癌患者随机分为实验组及对照组,每组各18例,实验组行直肠拖出切除吻合术,对照组行经腹直肠前切除吻合术。评估两组患者的的临床指标、肛门功能以及其预后情况。 结果对两组的临床基本资料进行比较,其中手术时间（t=15.728,P=0.000）、住院天数（t=4.391,P=0.044）、术中出血量（t=5.231,P=0.029）差异具有统计学意义（均P<0.05）;对两组患者术后不同时段的肛门功能进行比较,其中6个月时各等级（t=10.000,P=0.040）差异具有统计学意义;对两组患者的预后情况进行比较,其中两组患者在复发例数上（χ²=4.500,P=0.034）差异具有显著统计学意义。 结论低位直肠癌患者使用直肠拖出切除吻合术能有效的减少患者的手术时间,提高患者的生活质量,不失为一种安全、可行的手术方法。     

Comparison of the clinical results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the oncologic results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection (ISR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR).

Methods

Between 2003 and 2014, 277 consecutive patients with stage I–III low rectal cancer located within 5 cm from the anal verge underwent curative ISR and APR. A retrospective comparison of these two procedures was performed.

Results

Overall, 128 patients underwent ISR and 149 underwent APR. The ISR group had earlier clinical stages and shorter distal margins (p < 0.01). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 84.7/74.7% with T1–2 tumors and 51.3/67.6% with T3–4 tumors. In T3–4 tumors, the rate of local recurrence was higher in the ISR group (13.2%) than in the APR group (3.8%). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 89.7/92.3% for stage I cases, 84.4/87.5% for stage II cases, and 39.8/51.8% for stage III cases. Patients with stage III tumors had high rates of distant recurrence in both groups (24.3 vs. 26.3%).

Conclusion

ISR is a feasible surgical procedure for T1–2 tumors. Patients with stage III tumors should be considered for adjuvant therapy to control distant recurrence regardless of the surgical procedure.

     

Early results of intersphincteric resection for patients with very low rectal cancer: An active approach to avoid a permanent colostomy

PURPOSE Abdominoperineal resection has been the standard surgery for very low rectal cancer located within 5 cm of the anal verge. However, permanent colostomy exerts serious limitations on quality of life. The present study aimed to investigate curability and functional results of intersphincteric resection and additional partial external sphincteric resection for carcinoma of the anorectal junction.METHODS Thirty-five patients were prospectively studied from November 1999 to September 2002. All patients displayed adenocarcinoma (T3: n = 26; T2: n = 7; T1: n = 2) located between 0 and 2 cm above the dentate line. Abdominotransanal rectal resection with total mesorectal excision was performed in all patients (total intersphincteric resection: n = 14; subtotal intersphincteric resection: n = 5; additional partial external sphincteric resection: n = 6). All patients underwent diverting colostomy, which was closed at a median of six months postoperatively. Twenty patients received preoperative radiochemotherapy.RESULTS All patients had curative intent with microscopic safety margins (mean surgical cut end: 4 mm; mean distal cut end: 10 mm). No postoperative mortality was encountered. Morbidity was identified in 13 patients (perianastomotic abscess: n = 4; anastomotic leakage and fistula: n = 4; postoperative bleeding: n = 2; wound infection: n = 1; anastomotic stenosis: n = 1; anovaginal fistula: n = 1). One of these patients received a permanent colostomy. Five patients developed recurrence (liver: n = 1; lung: n = 2; local and lung: n = 1; abdominal wall: n = 1) during the median observation period (23 months). Two of these patients underwent curative resection of liver or lung metastases. Twenty-one patients have received stoma closure, and although continence was satisfactory in all, 5 displayed occasional minor soiling 12 months after stoma closure. Anal canal manometry demonstrated significant reduction in maximum resting pressure (median: 50 cmH₂O at 12 months after stoma closure), but acceptable function results were obtained.CONCLUSION Curability and anal function were achieved by means of intersphincteric resection without or with additional partial external sphincteric resection. These procedures can be recommended for low rectal cancer patients who are candidates for abdominoperineal resection.Presented at the meeting of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Osaka, Japan, April 14 to 18, 2002.     

Clinical comparison of laparoscopy vs open surgery in a radical operation for rectal cancer: A retrospective case-control study

AIM: To assess the diverse immediate and long-term clinical outcomes, a retrospective comparison between laparoscopic and conventional operation was performed.METHODS: A total number of 916 clinical cases, from January 2006 to December 2013 in our hospital, were analyzed which covered 492 patients underwent the laparoscopy in radical resection (LRR) and 424 cases in open radical resection (ORR). A retrospective analysis was proceeded by comparing the general information, surgery performance, pathologic data, postoperative recovery and complications as well as long-term survival to investigate the diversity of immediate and long-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic radical operation.RESULTS: There were no statistically significance differences between gender, age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), tumor loci, tumor node metastasis stages, cell differentiation degree or American Society of Anesthesiologists scores of the patients (P > 0.05). In contrast to the ORR group, the LRR group experienced less operating time (P < 0.001), a lower blood loss (P < 0.001), and had a 2.44% probability of conversion to open surgery. Postoperative bowel function recovered more quickly, analgesic usage and the average hospital stay (P < 0.001) were reduced after LRR. Lymph node dissection during LRR appeared to be slightly more than in ORR (P = 0.338). There were no obvious differences in the lengths and margins (P = 0.182). And the occurrence rate in the two groups was similar (P = 0.081). Overall survival rate of ORR and LRR for 1, 3 and 5 years were 94.0% and 93.6% (P = 0.534), 78.1% and 80.9% (P = 0.284) and 75.2% and 77.0% (P = 0.416), respectively.CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy as a radical operation for rectal cancer was safe, produced better immediate outcomes. Long-term survival of laparoscopy revealed that it was similar to the open operation.