Cargando…

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study

The current gold standard surgical treatment for right colonic malignancy is the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations which can be overcome by robotic surgery. The benefits of robotics for rectal cancer are widely accepted but its use for right hemico...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hannan, Enda, Feeney, Gerard, Ullah, Mohammad Fahad, Ryan, Claire, McNamara, Emma, Waldron, David, Condon, Eoghan, Coffey, John Calvin, Peirce, Colin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer London 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9135878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34338996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01286-5
_version_ 1784714059197710336
author Hannan, Enda
Feeney, Gerard
Ullah, Mohammad Fahad
Ryan, Claire
McNamara, Emma
Waldron, David
Condon, Eoghan
Coffey, John Calvin
Peirce, Colin
author_facet Hannan, Enda
Feeney, Gerard
Ullah, Mohammad Fahad
Ryan, Claire
McNamara, Emma
Waldron, David
Condon, Eoghan
Coffey, John Calvin
Peirce, Colin
author_sort Hannan, Enda
collection PubMed
description The current gold standard surgical treatment for right colonic malignancy is the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations which can be overcome by robotic surgery. The benefits of robotics for rectal cancer are widely accepted but its use for right hemicolectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) and LRH in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with early oncological outcomes of patients who underwent RRH and LRH with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 70 patients (35 RRH, 35 LRH) were identified over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, surgical site infection or lengths of stay were demonstrated. Surgical specimen quality in both groups was favourable. The mean duration of surgery was longer in RRH (p <  < 0.00001). A statistically significant proportion of RRH patients had a higher BMI and ASA grade. The results demonstrate that RRH is safe and feasible when compared to LRH, with no statistical difference in postoperative morbidity, mortality and early oncological outcomes. A difference was noted in operating time, however was influenced by training residents in docking the robot and a technically challenging cohort of patients. Operative time has shortened with further experience. Incorporating an intracorporeal anastomosis technique in RRH offers the potential to improve outcomes compared to LRH.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9135878
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer London
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91358782022-05-28 Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study Hannan, Enda Feeney, Gerard Ullah, Mohammad Fahad Ryan, Claire McNamara, Emma Waldron, David Condon, Eoghan Coffey, John Calvin Peirce, Colin J Robot Surg Original Article The current gold standard surgical treatment for right colonic malignancy is the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations which can be overcome by robotic surgery. The benefits of robotics for rectal cancer are widely accepted but its use for right hemicolectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) and LRH in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with early oncological outcomes of patients who underwent RRH and LRH with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 70 patients (35 RRH, 35 LRH) were identified over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, surgical site infection or lengths of stay were demonstrated. Surgical specimen quality in both groups was favourable. The mean duration of surgery was longer in RRH (p <  < 0.00001). A statistically significant proportion of RRH patients had a higher BMI and ASA grade. The results demonstrate that RRH is safe and feasible when compared to LRH, with no statistical difference in postoperative morbidity, mortality and early oncological outcomes. A difference was noted in operating time, however was influenced by training residents in docking the robot and a technically challenging cohort of patients. Operative time has shortened with further experience. Incorporating an intracorporeal anastomosis technique in RRH offers the potential to improve outcomes compared to LRH. Springer London 2021-08-02 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9135878/ /pubmed/34338996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01286-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Hannan, Enda
Feeney, Gerard
Ullah, Mohammad Fahad
Ryan, Claire
McNamara, Emma
Waldron, David
Condon, Eoghan
Coffey, John Calvin
Peirce, Colin
Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study
title Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study
title_full Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study
title_fullStr Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study
title_full_unstemmed Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study
title_short Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study
title_sort robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9135878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34338996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01286-5
work_keys_str_mv AT hannanenda roboticversuslaparoscopicrighthemicolectomyacasematchedstudy
AT feeneygerard roboticversuslaparoscopicrighthemicolectomyacasematchedstudy
AT ullahmohammadfahad roboticversuslaparoscopicrighthemicolectomyacasematchedstudy
AT ryanclaire roboticversuslaparoscopicrighthemicolectomyacasematchedstudy
AT mcnamaraemma roboticversuslaparoscopicrighthemicolectomyacasematchedstudy
AT waldrondavid roboticversuslaparoscopicrighthemicolectomyacasematchedstudy
AT condoneoghan roboticversuslaparoscopicrighthemicolectomyacasematchedstudy
AT coffeyjohncalvin roboticversuslaparoscopicrighthemicolectomyacasematchedstudy
AT peircecolin roboticversuslaparoscopicrighthemicolectomyacasematchedstudy