Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2016

29.12.2015 | Colorectal Cancer

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

verfasst von: Pierre-Emmanuel Colombo, MD, PhD, Martin M. Bertrand, MD, Mathias Alline, MD, Eric Boulay, MD, Anne Mourregot, MD, Sébastien Carrère, MD, François Quénet, MD, Marta Jarlier, MSc, Philippe Rouanet, MD, PhD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 5/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME), a novel way for minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, was shown in previous studies to be safe and effective. However, comparison with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) has drawn contradictory disputes, especially concerning operative high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare R-TME and L-TME on the rectal technical approach.

Methods

Between October 2009 and March 2013, a total of 120 consecutive rectal carcinomas, operated for sphincter-saving procedure, were enrolled. The patient population included the last 60 laparoscopic procedures and the first 60 robotic surgeries (six hybrid approaches, then 54 full robotic surgeries). There were no exclusions.

Results

Patients’ baseline characteristics were similar in both the R-TME and L-TME groups. Outcomes were equivalent for blood loss (200 vs. 100 mL), postoperative hospital stay (12 vs. 11 days), conversion rate (3.2 vs. 4.8 %), lymph nodes yield (15 vs. 19), no positive distal margin (0 %), positive radial margin (6.4 vs. 9.3 %), diverting ileostomy (73 vs. 58 %) and severe morbidity (28 vs. 20 %). Significant differences were found for median operative time (274 vs. 228 min; p = 0.003) and proctectomy performed via transanal approach (1.7 vs. 16.7 %; p = 0.004). The R-TME operative time curve stabilized to 245 min after the first 25 procedures.

Conclusions

For rectal cancer, R-TME may be as feasible and safe as L-TME in terms of technique. In our practice and for difficult cases, R-TME allows complete rectal dissection by an abdominal approach, while L-TME requires a transanal approach.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, 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;100:75–82.CrossRefPubMed Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, 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;100:75–82.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:210–8.CrossRefPubMed van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:210–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, et al. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1324–32.CrossRefPubMed Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, et al. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1324–32.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1346–55.CrossRefPubMed Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1346–55.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: The ALaCaRT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1356–63.CrossRefPubMed Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: The ALaCaRT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1356–63.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Rouanet PMD, Mourregot AMD, Azar CCMD, et al. Transanal endoscopic proctectomy: an innovative procedure for difficult resection of rectal tumors in men with narrow pelvis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:408–15.CrossRefPubMed Rouanet PMD, Mourregot AMD, Azar CCMD, et al. Transanal endoscopic proctectomy: an innovative procedure for difficult resection of rectal tumors in men with narrow pelvis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:408–15.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, et al. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1887–95.CrossRefPubMed D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, et al. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1887–95.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Kwak JM, Kim SH, Kim J, Son DN, Baek SJ, Cho JS. Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case-control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:151–6.CrossRefPubMed Kwak JM, Kim SH, Kim J, Son DN, Baek SJ, Cho JS. Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case-control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:151–6.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Park JS, Choi G-S, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3195–202.CrossRefPubMed Park JS, Choi G-S, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3195–202.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Patel CB, Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Haas EM. A three-arm (laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic) matched-case analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:144–50.CrossRefPubMed Patel CB, Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Haas EM. A three-arm (laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic) matched-case analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:144–50.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2888–94.CrossRefPubMed Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2888–94.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Popescu I, Vasilescu C, Tomulescu V, Vasile S, Sgarbura O. The minimally invasive approach, laparoscopic and robotic, in rectal resection for cancer. A single center experience. Acta Chir Iugosl. 2010;57:29–35.CrossRefPubMed Popescu I, Vasilescu C, Tomulescu V, Vasile S, Sgarbura O. The minimally invasive approach, laparoscopic and robotic, in rectal resection for cancer. A single center experience. Acta Chir Iugosl. 2010;57:29–35.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Lin S, Jiang H-G, Chen Z-H, Zhou S-Y, Liu X-S, Yu J-R. Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:5214–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lin S, Jiang H-G, Chen Z-H, Zhou S-Y, Liu X-S, Yu J-R. Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:5214–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R, et al. Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e134–56.CrossRefPubMed Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R, et al. Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e134–56.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC. Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2095–101.CrossRefPubMed Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC. Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2095–101.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3727–36.CrossRefPubMed Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3727–36.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Gonzálezfernández AM, Mascareñasgonzález JF. Total laparoscopic mesorectal excision versus robot-assisted in the treatment of rectal cancer: a meta-analysis [in Spanish]. Cir Esp. 2012;90:348–54.CrossRef Gonzálezfernández AM, Mascareñasgonzález JF. Total laparoscopic mesorectal excision versus robot-assisted in the treatment of rectal cancer: a meta-analysis [in Spanish]. Cir Esp. 2012;90:348–54.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Ortiz-Oshiro E, Sánchez-Egido I, Moreno-Sierra J, Pérez CF, Díaz JS, Fernández-Represa JÁ. Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2012;8:360–70.CrossRefPubMed Ortiz-Oshiro E, Sánchez-Egido I, Moreno-Sierra J, Pérez CF, Díaz JS, Fernández-Represa JÁ. Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2012;8:360–70.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C, Cheng Y. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2014;188:404–14.CrossRefPubMed Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C, Cheng Y. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2014;188:404–14.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Jayne D. The evidence, where are we? Robotic versus laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer trial results. Oral communication. ASCRS Annual Meeting, 1 Jun 2015. Jayne D. The evidence, where are we? Robotic versus laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer trial results. Oral communication. ASCRS Annual Meeting, 1 Jun 2015.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;261:129–37.CrossRefPubMed Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;261:129–37.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Kuo L-J, Lin Y-K, Chang C-C, Tai C-J, Chiou J-F, Chang Y-J. Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for robotic surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:555–62.CrossRefPubMed Kuo L-J, Lin Y-K, Chang C-C, Tai C-J, Chiou J-F, Chang Y-J. Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for robotic surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:555–62.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim HJ, Choi G-S, 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;57:1066–74.CrossRefPubMed Kim HJ, Choi G-S, 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;57:1066–74.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Baek J-H, Pastor C, Pigazzi A. Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2010;25:521–5.CrossRefPubMed Baek J-H, Pastor C, Pigazzi A. Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2010;25:521–5.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Park YA, Kim JM, Kim SA, et al. Totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer: from splenic flexure to pelvic floor in one setup. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:715–20.CrossRefPubMed Park YA, Kim JM, Kim SA, et al. Totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer: from splenic flexure to pelvic floor in one setup. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:715–20.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat 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(6):1040–5.CrossRefPubMed 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(6):1040–5.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
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
verfasst von
Pierre-Emmanuel Colombo, MD, PhD
Martin M. Bertrand, MD
Mathias Alline, MD
Eric Boulay, MD
Anne Mourregot, MD
Sébastien Carrère, MD
François Quénet, MD
Marta Jarlier, MSc
Philippe Rouanet, MD, PhD
Publikationsdatum
29.12.2015
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 5/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-5048-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

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

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis 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“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ 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“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
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.