Cargando…
Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer
AIM: Sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer include low anterior and intersphincteric resection. In low anterior resection, the distal rectum is divided by a transabdominal approach, which is technically demanding. In intersphincteric resection, a perineal approach is used. We a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444857/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36091301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12564 |
_version_ | 1784783323877343232 |
---|---|
author | Kojima, Tadahiro Hino, Hitoshi Shiomi, Akio Kagawa, Hiroyasu Yamaoka, Yusuke Manabe, Shoichi Kato, Shunichiro Hanaoka, Marie |
author_facet | Kojima, Tadahiro Hino, Hitoshi Shiomi, Akio Kagawa, Hiroyasu Yamaoka, Yusuke Manabe, Shoichi Kato, Shunichiro Hanaoka, Marie |
author_sort | Kojima, Tadahiro |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: Sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer include low anterior and intersphincteric resection. In low anterior resection, the distal rectum is divided by a transabdominal approach, which is technically demanding. In intersphincteric resection, a perineal approach is used. We aimed to evaluate whether robotic‐assisted surgery is technically superior to laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer. We compared the frequency of low anterior resection in cases of sphincter‐preserving operations. METHOD: We investigated 183 patients who underwent sphincter‐preserving robotic‐assisted or laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer (lower border within 5 cm of the anal verge) between April 2010 and March 2020. The frequency of low anterior resection was compared between laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted surgeries. The clinicopathological factors associated with an increase in performing low anterior resection were analyzed by multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 41 (22.4%) and 142 (77.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted surgery, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. Low anterior resection was done significantly more frequently in robotic‐assisted surgery (67.6%) than in laparoscopic surgery (48.8%) (P = 0.04). Multivariate analyses showed that tumor distance from the anal verge (P < 0.01) and robotic‐assisted surgery (P = 0.02) were significantly associated with an increase in the performance of low anterior resection. The rate of postoperative complications or pathological results was similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic‐assisted surgery significantly increased the frequency of low anterior resection in sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer. Robotic‐assisted surgery has technical superiority over laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer treatment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9444857 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94448572022-09-09 Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer Kojima, Tadahiro Hino, Hitoshi Shiomi, Akio Kagawa, Hiroyasu Yamaoka, Yusuke Manabe, Shoichi Kato, Shunichiro Hanaoka, Marie Ann Gastroenterol Surg Original Articles AIM: Sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer include low anterior and intersphincteric resection. In low anterior resection, the distal rectum is divided by a transabdominal approach, which is technically demanding. In intersphincteric resection, a perineal approach is used. We aimed to evaluate whether robotic‐assisted surgery is technically superior to laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer. We compared the frequency of low anterior resection in cases of sphincter‐preserving operations. METHOD: We investigated 183 patients who underwent sphincter‐preserving robotic‐assisted or laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer (lower border within 5 cm of the anal verge) between April 2010 and March 2020. The frequency of low anterior resection was compared between laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted surgeries. The clinicopathological factors associated with an increase in performing low anterior resection were analyzed by multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 41 (22.4%) and 142 (77.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted surgery, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. Low anterior resection was done significantly more frequently in robotic‐assisted surgery (67.6%) than in laparoscopic surgery (48.8%) (P = 0.04). Multivariate analyses showed that tumor distance from the anal verge (P < 0.01) and robotic‐assisted surgery (P = 0.02) were significantly associated with an increase in the performance of low anterior resection. The rate of postoperative complications or pathological results was similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic‐assisted surgery significantly increased the frequency of low anterior resection in sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer. Robotic‐assisted surgery has technical superiority over laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer treatment. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9444857/ /pubmed/36091301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12564 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japanese Society of Gastroenterological Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Kojima, Tadahiro Hino, Hitoshi Shiomi, Akio Kagawa, Hiroyasu Yamaoka, Yusuke Manabe, Shoichi Kato, Shunichiro Hanaoka, Marie Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer |
title | Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer |
title_full | Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer |
title_fullStr | Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer |
title_short | Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer |
title_sort | comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444857/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36091301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12564 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kojimatadahiro comparisonbetweenroboticassistedandlaparoscopicsphincterpreservingoperationsforultralowrectalcancer AT hinohitoshi comparisonbetweenroboticassistedandlaparoscopicsphincterpreservingoperationsforultralowrectalcancer AT shiomiakio comparisonbetweenroboticassistedandlaparoscopicsphincterpreservingoperationsforultralowrectalcancer AT kagawahiroyasu comparisonbetweenroboticassistedandlaparoscopicsphincterpreservingoperationsforultralowrectalcancer AT yamaokayusuke comparisonbetweenroboticassistedandlaparoscopicsphincterpreservingoperationsforultralowrectalcancer AT manabeshoichi comparisonbetweenroboticassistedandlaparoscopicsphincterpreservingoperationsforultralowrectalcancer AT katoshunichiro comparisonbetweenroboticassistedandlaparoscopicsphincterpreservingoperationsforultralowrectalcancer AT hanaokamarie comparisonbetweenroboticassistedandlaparoscopicsphincterpreservingoperationsforultralowrectalcancer |