Skip to main content
main-content

09.11.2017 | Ausgabe 5/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 5/2018

Selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection: a comparative study of the robotic versus laparoscopic approach

Zeitschrift:
Surgical Endoscopy > Ausgabe 5/2018
Autoren:
Hye Jin Kim, Gyu-Seog Choi, Jun Seok Park, Soo Yeun Park, Hee Jae Lee, In Taek Woo, In Kyu Park
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00464-017-5948-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting, March 22–25, 2017, Houston, Texas.

Abstract

Background

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a challenging procedure due to its technical difficulty and higher incidence of surgical morbidity. We compared short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic LPND in patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

Between May 2006 and December 2014, prospectively collected data from consecutive patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with LPND were retrospectively compared. Patients’ demographics, perioperative outcomes, functional results, and initial oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Fifty and 35 patients underwent robotic or laparoscopic TME with LPND, respectively. Bilateral LPND was performed in 10 patients (20%) in the robotic group and 6 (17.1%) in the laparoscopic group. For unilateral pelvic dissection, the mean operative time was not significantly different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 41.0 ± 15.8 min vs. 35.3 ± 13.4 min; P = 0.146), but the EBL was significantly lower in the robotic group (34.6 ± 21.9 mL vs. 50.6 ± 23.8 mL; P = 0.002). Two patients (4.0%) in the robotic group and 7 (20.0%) in the laparoscopic group underwent Foley catheter reinsertion for urinary retention postoperatively (P = 0.029). The mean number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPNs) was 6.6 (range 0–25) in the robotic group and 6.4 (range 1–14) in the laparoscopic group. Pathologic LPN metastatic rate was not different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 28.0 vs. 41.2%; P = 0.243). During the median follow-up of 26.3 months, overall recurrence rate was not different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 30.0 vs. 31.2%; P = 0.850). Three patients (6.0%) in the robotic group and 4 (11.4%) in the laparoscopic group developed local recurrence (P = 0.653).

Conclusions

Robotic TME with LPND is safe and feasible with favorable short-term surgical outcomes.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Supplementary material 1 (WMV 207166 KB)
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 5/2018 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Chirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise