Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 9/2019

19.11.2018 | 2018 SAGES Oral

Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study

verfasst von: Jun Seok Park, Hyun Kang, Soo Yeun Park, Hye Jin Kim, In Teak Woo, In-Kyu Park, Gyu-Seog Choi

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 9/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy (RAC) with those for conventional laparoscopy-assisted right surgery (LAC) for treating right-sided colon cancer.

Background

The enthusiasm for the robotic techniques has gained increasing interest in colorectal malignancies. However, the role of robotic surgery in the oncologic safety has not yet been defined.

Methods

From September 2009 to July 2011, 71 patients with right-sided colonic cancer were randomized in the study. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were similar in both groups. The primary and secondary endpoints of the study were hospital stay and survival, respectively. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle.

Results

The RAC and LAC groups did not differ significantly in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. Compared with the LAC group, RAC was associated with longer operation times (195 min vs. 129 min, P < 0.001) and higher cost ($12,235 vs. $10,319, P = 0.013). The median follow-up was 49.23 months (interquartile range 40.63–56.20). The combined 5-year disease-free rate for all tumor stages was 77.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.6–92.1%) in the RAC group and 83.6% (95% CI 72.1–0.97.0%) in the LAC group (P = 0.442). The combined 5-year overall survival rates for all stages were 91.1% (95% CI 78.8–100%) in the RAC group and 91.0% (95% CI 81.3–100%) in the LAC group (P = 0.678). Using multivariate analysis, RAC was not a predictor of recurrence.

Conclusions

RAC appears to similar long-term survival as compared with LAC. However, we did not observe any clinical benefits of RAC which could translate to a decrease in expenditures.
Trial registry: http://​www.​ClinicalTrials.​gov, number NCT00470951.

Graphical abstract

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A et al (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1689–1694 (discussion 1695-6)CrossRefPubMed Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A et al (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1689–1694 (discussion 1695-6)CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Tyler JA, Fox JP, Desai MM et al (2013) Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum 56:458–466CrossRef Tyler JA, Fox JP, Desai MM et al (2013) Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum 56:458–466CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Vegunta RK et al (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1701–1708CrossRefPubMed Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Vegunta RK et al (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1701–1708CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V et al (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168CrossRefPubMed D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V et al (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99:1219–1226CrossRef Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99:1219–1226CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al (2012) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 10:28–55CrossRef Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al (2012) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 10:28–55CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Park JS, Choi GS, Kim HJ et al (2011) Natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopically assisted right hemicolectomy. Br J Surg 98:710–715CrossRefPubMed Park JS, Choi GS, Kim HJ et al (2011) Natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopically assisted right hemicolectomy. Br J Surg 98:710–715CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Morpurgo E et al (2010) Robotic right colon resection: evaluation of first 50 consecutive cases for malignant disease. Ann Surg Oncol 17:2856–2862CrossRefPubMed D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Morpurgo E et al (2010) Robotic right colon resection: evaluation of first 50 consecutive cases for malignant disease. Ann Surg Oncol 17:2856–2862CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Melich G, Jeong DH, Hur H et al (2014) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision provides acceptable perioperative outcomes but is lengthy—analysis of learning curves for a novice minimally invasive surgeon. Can J Surg 57:331–336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Melich G, Jeong DH, Hur H et al (2014) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision provides acceptable perioperative outcomes but is lengthy—analysis of learning curves for a novice minimally invasive surgeon. Can J Surg 57:331–336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lujan HJ, Molano A, Burgos A et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: experience with 52 consecutive cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25:117–122CrossRefPubMed Lujan HJ, Molano A, Burgos A et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: experience with 52 consecutive cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25:117–122CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ et al (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53:1000–1006CrossRefPubMed deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ et al (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53:1000–1006CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Trastulli S, Desiderio J, Farinacci F et al (2013) Robotic right colectomy for cancer with intracorporeal anastomosis: short-term outcomes from a single institution. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:807–814CrossRefPubMed Trastulli S, Desiderio J, Farinacci F et al (2013) Robotic right colectomy for cancer with intracorporeal anastomosis: short-term outcomes from a single institution. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:807–814CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Kang J, Park YA, Baik SH et al (2016) A comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery in the treatment of right-sided colon cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:497–502CrossRefPubMed Kang J, Park YA, Baik SH et al (2016) A comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery in the treatment of right-sided colon cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:497–502CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Bodner J, Augustin F, Wykypiel H et al (2005) The da Vinci robotic system for general surgical applications: a critical interim appraisal. Swiss Med Wkly 135:674–678PubMed Bodner J, Augustin F, Wykypiel H et al (2005) The da Vinci robotic system for general surgical applications: a critical interim appraisal. Swiss Med Wkly 135:674–678PubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS et al (2009) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1480–1487CrossRef Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS et al (2009) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1480–1487CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 28:212–221CrossRefPubMed Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 28:212–221CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Petrucciani N, Sirimarco D, Nigri GR et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy: a worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy. J Minim Access Surg 11:22–28CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Petrucciani N, Sirimarco D, Nigri GR et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy: a worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy. J Minim Access Surg 11:22–28CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Shin JY (2012) Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between a robotic colectomy and a laparoscopic colectomy during early experience. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28:19–26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shin JY (2012) Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between a robotic colectomy and a laparoscopic colectomy during early experience. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28:19–26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study
verfasst von
Jun Seok Park
Hyun Kang
Soo Yeun Park
Hye Jin Kim
In Teak Woo
In-Kyu Park
Gyu-Seog Choi
Publikationsdatum
19.11.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6563-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2019

Surgical Endoscopy 9/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.