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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kojima, Tadahiro, Hino, Hitoshi, Shiomi, Akio, Kagawa, Hiroyasu, Yamaoka, Yusuke, Manabe, Shoichi, Kato, Shunichiro, Hanaoka, Marie
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