Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Surgery Today
Erschienen in: Surgery Today 1/2021

04.05.2020 | Review Article

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence

verfasst von: Pietro Achilli, Fabian Grass, David W. Larson

Erschienen in: Surgery Today | Ausgabe 1/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.
Literatur
1.
Larson DW, Nelson H. Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8(5):636–42.PubMed
2.
Lacy AM, García-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taurá P, Piqué JM, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9325):2224–9.PubMed
3.
Larson DW, Davies MM, Dozois EJ, Cima RR, Piotrowicz K, Anderson K, et al. Sexual function, body image, and quality of life after laparoscopic and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(4):392–6.PubMed
4.
Jiménez-Rodríguez RM, Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares M, Díaz-Pavón JM, Reyes-Díaz ML, Vazquez-Monchul JM, Garcia-Cabrera AM, et al. Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31(12):1807–15.PubMed
5.
Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AMH, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1718–26.PubMed
6.
Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, Quirke P, Guillou P, Jayne DG, et al. Long-term follow-up of the medical research council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100(1):75–82.PubMed
7.
8.
Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang SB, Lim SB, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):767–74.PubMed
9.
10.
Damle A, Damle RN, Flahive JM, Schlussel AT, Davids JS, Sturrock PR, et al. Diffusion of technology: trends in robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. Am J Surg. 2017;214(5):820–4.PubMed
11.
Fleshman J, Branda ME, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George VV, Abbas MA, et al. Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage II to III rectal cancer: follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019;264(4):589–95.
12.
Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Brown CSB, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, et al. Disease-free survival and local recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: the Australasian laparoscopic cancer of the rectum randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269(4):596–602.PubMed
13.
Elhage O, Challacombe B, Shortland A, Dasgupta P. An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort: a comparison between robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open approaches. BJU Int. 2015;115(2):274–81.PubMed
14.
Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JDI, Ballantyne GH, Paz IB. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2006;20(10):1521–5.
15.
Stewart CL, Ituarte PHG, Melstrom KA, Warner SG, Melstrom LG, Lai LL, et al. Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National inpatient sample. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(8):2591–601.PubMed
16.
17.
18.
Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, Couture J, et al. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2009;373:821–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:303–12.PubMed
20.
Kim MJ, Park SC, Park JW, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Nam BH, et al. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a phase II open label prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018;267(2):243–51.PubMed
21.
Valverde A, Goasguen N, Oberlin O, Svrcek M, Fléjou JF, Sezeur A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection for sphincter-saving surgery: pathological and short-term outcomes in a single-center analysis of 130 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc Springer USA. 2017;31:4085–91.
22.
23.
Kim J, Baek SJ, Kang DW, Roh YE, Lee JW, Kwak HD, et al. Robotic resection is a good prognostic factor in rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic resection: long-term survival analysis using propensity score matching. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(3):266–73.PubMed
24.
25.
Kang J, Yoon KJ, Min BS, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, et al. The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;257(1):95–101.PubMed
26.
Baik SH, Ko YT, Kang CM, Lee WJ, Kim NK, Sohn SK, et al. Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2008;22(7):1601–8.
27.
Allemann P, Duvoisin C, Di Mare L, Hübner M, Demartines N, Hahnloser D. Robotic-assisted surgery improves the quality of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopy: results of a case-controlled analysis. World J Surg. 2016;40(4):1010–6.PubMed
28.
Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY. Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: lessons from a single surgeon’s experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(9):1066–74.PubMed
29.
Colombo PE, Bertrand MM, Alline M, Boulay E, Mourregot A, Carrère S, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for sphincter-saving surgery: is there any difference in the transanal TME rectal approach? A single-center series of 120 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(5):1594–600.PubMed
30.
Barnajian M, Pettet D, Kazi E, Foppa C, Bergamaschi R. Quality of total mesorectal excision and depth of circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer: a matched comparison of the first 20 robotic cases. Color Dis. 2014;16(8):603–9.
31.
Prete FP, Pezzolla A, Prete F, Testini M, Marzaioli R, Patriti A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2018;267(6):1034–46.PubMed
32.
33.
Lim DR, Bae SU, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH, Lee KY, et al. Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid–low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(4):1728–37.PubMed
34.
Park SY, Choi GS, Park JS, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP. Short-term clinical outcome of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a retrospective comparison with conventional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(1):48–55.PubMed
35.
36.
37.
Morelli L, Di Franco G, Guadagni S, Rossi L, Palmeri M, Furbetta N, et al. Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: case-matched comparison of short-term surgical and functional outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and Si. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(2):589–600.PubMed
38.
Morelli L, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Palmeri M, Caprili G, D’Isidoro C, et al. Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si®. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2017;13(1):e1728.
39.
Gouvas N, Georgiou PA, Agalianos C, Tzovaras G, Tekkis P, Xynos E 2018. Does conversion to open of laparoscopically attempted rectal cancer cases affect short- and long-term outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A [Internet]. 2017/06/02. 1 Department of Colorectal Surgery, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust , Worcester, United Kingdom . 2 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, Chelsea and Westminster Campus, London, United Kingdom . 3 The 2nd Department of General Surg 28:117–26. Available from: https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​28570140https://​www.​liebertpub.​com/​doi/​pdfplus/​10.​1089/​lap.​2017.​0112
40.
41.
Speicher PJ, Englum BR, Ganapathi AM, Nussbaum DP, Mantyh CR, Migaly J. Robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A national perspective on short-term oncologic outcomes. Ann Surg. 2015;262:1040–5.PubMed
42.
Sun Y, Xu H, Li Z, Han J, Song W, Wang J, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):61.PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
44.
Shorthouse A. Splenic flexure mobilisation for anterior resection performed for sigmoid and rectal cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(8):638–42.
45.
Brennan DJ, Moynagh M, Brannigan AE, Gleeson F, Rowland M, O’Connell PR. Routine mobilization of the splenic flexure is not necessary during anterior resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(3):302–7.PubMed
46.
Katory M, Tang CL, Koh WL, Fook-Chong SMC, Loi TT, Ooi BS, et al. A 6-year review of surgical morbidity and oncological outcome after high anterior resection for colorectal malignancy with and without splenic flexure mobilization. Color Dis. 2008;10(2):165–9.
47.
48.
Isik O, Aytac E, Ashburn J, Ozuner G, Remzi F, Costedio M, et al. Does laparoscopy reduce splenic injuries during colorectal resections? An assessment from the ACS-NSQIP database. Surg Endosc Springer New York LLC. 2015;29:1039–44.
49.
50.
Liang JT, Huang J, Chen TC. Standardize the surgical technique and clarify the relevant anatomic concept for complete mobilization of colonic splenic flexure using da vinci xi® robotic system. World J Surg Springer New York LLC. 2019;43:1129–36.
51.
Isik O, Benlice C, Gorgun E. A novel approach for robotic mobilization of the splenic flexure. Tech Coloproctol Springer-Verl Ital s.r.l. 2017;21:53–7.
52.
Lange MM, Marijnen CAM, Maas CP, Putter H, Rutten HJ, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Risk factors for sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(9):1578–88.PubMed
53.
Banerjee AK. Sexual dysfunction after surgery for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1999;353(9168):1900–2.PubMed
54.
Hendren SK, O’Connor BI, Liu M, Asano T, Cohen Z, Swallow CJ, et al. Prevalence of male and female sexual dysfunction is high following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2005;242(2):212.PubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(8):2485–93.PubMed
56.
D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P, et al. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(6):1887–955.PubMed
57.
Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY, Yang CS, Lee HJ. The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery. Color Dis. 2018;20(5):O103–O113113.
58.
Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer the rolarr randomized clinical trial. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2017;318(16):1569–80.
59.
Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G, Russell T, Dyrbye L, Satele D, et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995–1000.PubMed
60.
Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D. Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(3):306–13.PubMed
61.
Berguer R, Smith WD, Chung YH. Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(10):1204–7.PubMed
62.
63.
Pernar LIM, Robertson FC, Tavakkoli A, Sheu EG, Brooks DC, Smink DS. An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(11):4583–96.PubMed
64.
Sng KK, Hara M, Shin JW, Yoo BE, Yang KS, Kim SH. The multiphasic learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(9):3297–307.PubMed
65.
Yamaguchi T, Kinugasa Y, Shiomi A, Sato S, Yamakawa Y, Kagawa H, et al. Learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: use of the cumulative sum method. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(7):1679–85.PubMed
66.
Park IJ, Choi GS, Kang BM, Lim KH, Lee IT, Jeon SW, et al. Comparison of one-stage managements of obstructing left-sided colon and rectal cancer: stent-laparoscopic approach vs. intraoperative colonic lavage. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13(5):960–5.PubMed
67.
Tandogdu Z, Vale L, Fraser C, Ramsay C. A systematic review of economic evaluations of the use of robotic assisted laparoscopy in surgery compared with open or laparoscopic surgery. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13(5):457–67.PubMed
68.
Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E, Fabra I, Caruso R, Malavé L, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(10):1423–9.PubMed
69.
Cleary RK, Mullard AJ, Ferraro J, Regenbogen SE. The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(3):1515–24.PubMed
70.
M L, G S, L V, DF G, C L, P M, et al. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon’s experience: a cost analysis covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31(9):1639–48.
71.
Byrn JC, Hrabe JE, Charlton ME. An initial experience with 85 consecutive robotic-assisted rectal dissections: improved operating times and lower costs with experience. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(11):3101–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
72.
Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, et al. A Comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–9.PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence
verfasst von
Pietro Achilli
Fabian Grass
David W. Larson
Publikationsdatum
04.05.2020
Verlag
Springer Singapore
Erschienen in
Surgery Today / Ausgabe 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0941-1291
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-2813
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-020-02008-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

Surgery Today 1/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

Newly developed primary malignancies in long-term survivors who underwent curative esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

Original Article

The usefulness and utilization of a detachable steel wire-rimmed retractor (KN retractor) for endoscopic thyroid and parathyroid surgery

Guideline

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

Original Article

The prognostic relevance of primary tumor sidedness to surgical treatment for recurrent colon cancer

Original Article

One-year outcomes of bariatric surgery in older adults: a case-matched analysis based on the Tehran Obesity Treatment Study

Original Article

The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score as a prognostic factor for obstructive colorectal cancer patients received stenting as a bridge to curative surgery

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

Update Chirurgie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

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.
Bildnachweise