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

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Surgical Endoscopy
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 2/2018

07.12.2017 | Review

Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

verfasst von: Christoph Holmer, Martin E. Kreis

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Potential advantages of robotic surgery, such as 3-dimensional high-definition vision, wrist-like movements of instruments, stable camera holding, motion filter for tremor-free surgery, and improved ergonomics, may provide better clinical, oncological, and functional outcomes in rectal cancer surgery, as suggested in many comparative studies. However, there has not been a systematic review specific to LAR/TME for rectal cancer that includes both robotic versus laparoscopic and robotic versus open comparative studies.

Methods

The PubMed and Scopus databases were systematically searched in a two-step process, first for all robotic publications, and then within those results, for studies that compared perioperative, oncologic, or functional outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic or open LAR/TME. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and independent database population studies were included in the analysis.

Results

Thirteen publications reporting on 24,526 patients met the inclusion criteria. Two studies compared robotic and open surgery, ten compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery, and one study compared all three. Robotic surgery resulted in increased operating times, reduced blood loss, fewer transfusions, shorter hospital stay, and comparable oncologic outcomes versus open surgery, and reduced conversion and impotency rates versus laparoscopic surgery.

Conclusions

Robotic surgery is comparable to open and laparoscopic surgery concerning oncologic outcomes and seems to provide some clinical and functional benefits, although evidence is limited.
Literatur
1.
Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery: the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69:613–616CrossRefPubMed
2.
Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA et al (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332CrossRefPubMed
3.
Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JD, Ballantyne GH et al (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 20:1521–1525CrossRefPubMed
4.
Baik SH, Ko YT, Kang CM, Lee WJ, Kim NK, Sohn SK, Chi HS, Cho CH (2008) Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc 22:1601–1608CrossRefPubMed
5.
Broholm M, Pommergaard HC, Gogenur I (2015) Possible benefits of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery regarding urological and sexual dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 17:375–381CrossRefPubMed
6.
Lee SH, Lim S, Kim JH et al (2015) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Treat Res 89:190–201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Liao G, Li YB, Zhao Z et al (2016) Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence. Sci Rep 6:26981CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Lin S, Jiang HG, Chen ZH et al (2011) Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 17:5214–5220CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG et al (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2095–2101CrossRefPubMed
10.
Midura EF, Hanseman DJ, Hoehn RS et al (2015) The effect of surgical approach on short-term oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Surgery 158:453–459CrossRefPubMed
11.
Somashekhar SP, Ashwin KR, Rajashekhar J et al (2015) Prospective randomized study comparing robotic-assisted surgery with traditional laparotomy for rectal cancer-Indian study. Indian J Surg 77:788–794CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Sun Z, Kim J, Adam MA et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open low anterior resection: equivalent survival in a national analysis of 14,033 patients with rectal cancer. Ann Surg 263:1152–1158CrossRefPubMed
14.
Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R et al (2012) Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis 14:e134–e156CrossRefPubMed
15.
Xiong B, Ma L, Huang W et al (2015) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies. J Gastrointest Surg 19:516–526CrossRefPubMed
16.
Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P et al (2012) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 19:3727–3736CrossRefPubMed
17.
Gonzalez Fernandez AM, Mascarenas Gonzalez JF (2012) Total laparoscopic mesorectal excision versus robot-assisted in the treatment of rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Cir Esp 90:348–354CrossRefPubMed
18.
Wang M, Kang X, Wang H et al (2014) A meta-analysis on the outcomes and potential benefits of hybrid robotic technique in rectal cancer surgery. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 17:785–790PubMed
19.
Yuan DB, Wen XN, Xu XC et al (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World Chinese J Digestol 20:3804–3810CrossRef
20.
Gleitsmann K, Bunker K, Kriz H et al (2012) Robotic assisted surgery. Center for Evidence-based Policy, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, pp 1–422
21.
Damle RN, Flahive JM, Davids JS et al (2016) Examination of racial disparities in the receipt of minimally invasive surgery among a national cohort of adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 59:1055–1062CrossRefPubMed
22.
Patel SV, Van Koughnett JA, Howe B et al (2015) Spin is common in studies assessing robotic colorectal surgery: an assessment of reporting and interpretation of study results. Dis Colon Rectum 58:878–884CrossRefPubMed
23.
Schootman M, Hendren S, Ratnapradipa K et al (2016) Adoption of robotic technology for treating colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 59:1011–1018CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Turner M, Adam MA, Sun Z et al. Insurance status, not race, is associated with use of minimally invasive surgical approach for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2016
25.
Yeo HL, Abelson JS, Mao J et al (2016) Minimally invasive surgery and sphincter preservation in rectal cancer. J Surg Res 202:299–307CrossRefPubMed
26.
Dolejs SC, Waters JA, Ceppa EP et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy: a national surgical quality improvement project analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016
27.
Bhama AR, Obias V, Welch KB et al (2016) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. Surg Endosc 30:1576–1584CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hollis RH, Cannon JA, Singletary BA et al (2016) Understanding the value of both laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared to the open approach in colorectal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26:850–856CrossRefPubMed
29.
Jimenez Rodriguez RM, Diaz Pavon JM, de La Portilla de Juan F et al (2011) Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection. Cir Esp 89:432–438CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Liao G, Zhao Z, Lin S et al (2014) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol 12:122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA et al (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252:254–262CrossRefPubMed
33.
Salman M, Bell T, Martin J et al (2013) Use, cost, complications, and mortality of robotic versus nonrobotic general surgery procedures based on a nationwide database. Am Surg 79:553–560PubMed
34.
Tan A, Ashrafian H, Scott AJ et al (2016) Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years. Surg Endosc 30:4330–4352CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
36.
Yu J, Wang Y, Li Y et al (2014) The safety and effectiveness of Da Vinci surgical system compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery: a rapid assessment. J Evid Based Med 7:121–134CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zhang X, Wei Z, Bie M et al (2016) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 30:5601–5614CrossRefPubMed
38.
Addae JK, Gani F, Fang SY et al (2017) A comparison of trends in operative approach and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer surgery. J Surg Res 208:111–120CrossRefPubMed
39.
Bhama AR, Wafa AM, Ferraro J et al (2016) Comparison of risk factors for unplanned conversion from laparoscopic and robotic to open colorectal surgery using the Michigan surgical quality collaborative (MSQC) database. J Gastrointest Surg 20:1223–1230CrossRefPubMed
40.
Feinberg AE, Elnahas A, Bashir S et al (2016) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative morbidity. Can J Surg 59:16615CrossRef
41.
Gabriel E, Thirunavukarasu P, Al-Sukhni E et al (2016) National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 30:1060–1067CrossRefPubMed
42.
Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 28:212–221CrossRefPubMed
43.
Lorenzon L, Bini F, Balducci G et al (2016) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:161–173CrossRefPubMed
44.
Tam MS, Kaoutzanis C, Mullard AJ et al (2016) A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 30:455–463CrossRefPubMed
45.
Collinson FJ, Jayne DG, Pigazzi A et al (2012) An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:233–241CrossRefPubMed
46.
Fazl Alizadeh R, Stamos MJ (2016) Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Minerva Chir 71:311–321PubMed
47.
Guerra F, Pesi B, Amore Bonapasta S et al (2016) Does robotics improve minimally invasive rectal surgery? Functional and oncological implications. J Dig Dis 17:88–94CrossRefPubMed
48.
Speicher PJ, Englum BR, Ganapathi AM et al (2015) Robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a national perspective on short-term oncologic outcomes. Ann Surg 262:1040–1045CrossRefPubMed
49.
Ortiz-Oshiro E, Sanchez-Egido I, Moreno-Sierra J et al (2012) Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot 8:360–370CrossRefPubMed
50.
Wang Y, Zhao GH, Yang H et al (2016) A pooled analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:259–264CrossRefPubMed
51.
Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. J Surg Res 188:404–414CrossRefPubMed
52.
Chen SH, Li ZA, Huang R et al (2016) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer staging: a meta-analysis. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 55:488–494CrossRefPubMed
53.
Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK et al (2015) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:891–901CrossRefPubMed
54.
Laird A, Fowler S, Good DW et al (2015) Contemporary practice and technique-related outcomes for radical prostatectomy in the UK: a report of national outcomes. BJU Int 115:753–763CrossRefPubMed
55.
Park DA, Yun JE, Kim SW et al (2016) Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 43:994CrossRefPubMed
56.
Weiner AB, Murthy P, Richards KA et al (2015) Population based analysis of incidence and predictors of open conversion during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Urol 193:826–831CrossRefPubMed
57.
Xie W, Cao D, Yang J et al (2016) Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 142:2173–2183CrossRefPubMed
58.
Franks PJ, Bosanquet N, Thorpe H et al (2006) Short-term costs of conventional vs laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial). Br J Cancer 95:6–12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Yamamoto S, Fukunaga M, Miyajima N et al (2009) Impact of conversion on surgical outcomes after laparoscopic operation for rectal carcinoma: a retrospective study of 1,073 patients. J Am Coll Surg 208:383–389CrossRefPubMed
60.
Rottoli M, Bona S, Rosati R et al (2009) Laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: effects of conversion on short-term outcome and survival. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1279–1286CrossRefPubMed
61.
Masui H, Ike H, Yamaguchi S et al (1996) Male sexual function after autonomic nerve-preserving operation for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 39:1140–1145CrossRefPubMed
62.
63.
Dulskas A, Miliauskas P, Tikuisis R et al (2016) The functional results of radical rectal cancer surgery: review of the literature. Acta Chir Belg 116(1):1–10CrossRefPubMed
64.
Hughes DL, Cornish J, Morris C, LARRIS Trial Management Group (2017) Functional outcome following rectal surgery-predisposing factors for low anterior resection syndrome. Int J Colorectal Dis 32(5):691–697CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer
verfasst von
Christoph Holmer
Martin E. Kreis
Publikationsdatum
07.12.2017
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5978-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Anastomotic stricture after ultralow anterior resection or intersphincteric resection for very low-lying rectal cancer

OriginalPaper

Preoperative Botulinum toxin A enabling defect closure and laparoscopic repair of complex ventral hernia

OriginalPaper

Stent migration following endoscopic suture fixation of esophageal self-expandable metal stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OriginalPaper

Barrett’s esophagus before and after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for severe obesity

OriginalPaper

Model to identify early-stage gastric cancers with deep invasion of submucosa based on endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography findings

OriginalPaper

Can a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass be safely performed by surgical residents in a bariatric center-of-excellence? The learning curve of surgical residents in bariatric surgery

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

17.04.2024 | Postoperative nausea and vomiting | Nachrichten

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

16.04.2024 | HNO-Chirurgie | Nachrichten

HNO-Op. auch mit über 90?

16.04.2024 | Infektiologie | Nachrichten

Kein Abstrich bei chronischen Wunden ohne Entzündungszeichen!

10.04.2024 | Postoperative Schmerztherapie | Nachrichten

Chronische Schmerzen nach Op. oft mit neuropathischer Komponente
weitere anzeigen

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 CME-Kurs
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“

Radiusfraktur CME-Kurs
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“

Appendizitis CME-Kurs
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.