Cargando…

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Staderini, Fabio, Foppa, Caterina, Minuzzo, Alessio, Badii, Benedetta, Qirici, Etleva, Trallori, Giacomo, Mallardi, Beatrice, Lami, Gabriele, Macrì, Giuseppe, Bonanomi, Andrea, Bagnoli, Siro, Perigli, Giuliano, Cianchi, Fabio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108978/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27895814
http://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v8.i11.757
_version_ 1782467453087907840
author Staderini, Fabio
Foppa, Caterina
Minuzzo, Alessio
Badii, Benedetta
Qirici, Etleva
Trallori, Giacomo
Mallardi, Beatrice
Lami, Gabriele
Macrì, Giuseppe
Bonanomi, Andrea
Bagnoli, Siro
Perigli, Giuliano
Cianchi, Fabio
author_facet Staderini, Fabio
Foppa, Caterina
Minuzzo, Alessio
Badii, Benedetta
Qirici, Etleva
Trallori, Giacomo
Mallardi, Beatrice
Lami, Gabriele
Macrì, Giuseppe
Bonanomi, Andrea
Bagnoli, Siro
Perigli, Giuliano
Cianchi, Fabio
author_sort Staderini, Fabio
collection PubMed
description Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5108978
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51089782016-11-28 Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art Staderini, Fabio Foppa, Caterina Minuzzo, Alessio Badii, Benedetta Qirici, Etleva Trallori, Giacomo Mallardi, Beatrice Lami, Gabriele Macrì, Giuseppe Bonanomi, Andrea Bagnoli, Siro Perigli, Giuliano Cianchi, Fabio World J Gastrointest Oncol Review Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2016-11-15 2016-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5108978/ /pubmed/27895814 http://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v8.i11.757 Text en ©The Author(s) 2016. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Review
Staderini, Fabio
Foppa, Caterina
Minuzzo, Alessio
Badii, Benedetta
Qirici, Etleva
Trallori, Giacomo
Mallardi, Beatrice
Lami, Gabriele
Macrì, Giuseppe
Bonanomi, Andrea
Bagnoli, Siro
Perigli, Giuliano
Cianchi, Fabio
Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art
title Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art
title_full Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art
title_fullStr Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art
title_full_unstemmed Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art
title_short Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art
title_sort robotic rectal surgery: state of the art
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108978/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27895814
http://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v8.i11.757
work_keys_str_mv AT staderinifabio roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT foppacaterina roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT minuzzoalessio roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT badiibenedetta roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT qiricietleva roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT trallorigiacomo roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT mallardibeatrice roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT lamigabriele roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT macrigiuseppe roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT bonanomiandrea roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT bagnolisiro roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT perigligiuliano roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart
AT cianchifabio roboticrectalsurgerystateoftheart