Se Jin Baek

Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case-control study.

PURPOSE: Few data are available to compare robotic and laparoscopic techniques for rectal cancer resection. This study aimed to compare short-term outcomes with these procedures performed by a single surgeon. METHODS: Using data from a prospective database of all operations performed in our department, we retrospectively analyzed data from 117 robotic and 102 laparoscopic rectal cancer resections performed by one surgeon between July 2007 and October 2009. Robotic resection was offered as a treatment option to all patients, and laparoscopic resection was performed for those who refused. This analysis was a case-control study in which patients in the 2 groups were matched according to tumor location, staging, age, and gender. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients (59 matched pairs) were included in the study. No differences were found between robotic and laparoscopic resection regarding number of lymph nodes harvested (median, 20; interquartile range, 12–27 vs 21; 14–28; P = .702) or distal resection margin (median, 2.2 cm; interquartile range, 1.5–3.0 cm vs 2.0; 1.2–3.5 cm; P = .865). The circumferential margin was positive (≤2 mm) in 1 patient in the robotic group but in none of the laparoscopic group (P > .999). Operating time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (P < .0001). No conversions were necessary in the robotic group, but 2 cases (3.4%) were converted to open surgery in the laparoscopic group (P = .496). No differences were observed between groups regarding postoperative complications. Operative mortality was zero in both groups. During a median follow-up of 15.0 months, 2 cases of distant metastases and 1 case of local recurrence were observed in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic rectal cancer resection can be safely performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with acceptable short-term outcomes comparable to those for laparoscopic resection.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic surgery at a single institution. BACKGROUND Robotic surgery is regarded as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer were acceptable in previous reports. However, evidence of long-term feasibility and oncologic safety is required. METHODS Between April 2006 and August 2011, 217 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer with stage I-III disease were enrolled prospectively (robot, n = 133; laparoscopy, n = 84). Median follow-up period was 58 months (range, 4-80 months). Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes, morbidities, 5-year survival rates, prognostic factors, and cost were evaluated. RESULTS Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes demonstrated no significant differences except for the conversion rate and length of hospital stay. The 5-year overall survival rate was 92.8% in robotic, and 93.5% in laparoscopic surgical procedures (P = 0.829). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 81.9% and 78.7%, respectively (P = 0.547). Local recurrence was similar: 2.3% and 1.2% (P = 0.649). According to the univariate analysis, this type of surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for long-term survival. The patients mean payment for robotic surgery was approximately 2.34 times higher than laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSIONS No significant differences were found in the 5-year overall, disease-free survival and local recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures. We concluded that robotic surgery for rectal cancer failed to offer any oncologic or clinical benefits as compared with laparoscopy despite an increased cost.

Short and Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Retrospective Study

AbstractThe true benefits of robotic surgery are controversial, and whether robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be justified as a standard treatment for rectal cancer patients needs to be clarified. This case-matched study aimed to compare the postoperative complications and short- and long-term outcomes of R-TME and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) for rectal cancer.Among 1029 patients, we identified 278 rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME. Propensity score matching was used to match this group with 278 patients who underwent L-TME.The mean follow-up period was similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 52.5 ± 17.1 vs 51.0 ± 13.1 months, P = 0.253), as were patient characteristics. The operation time was significantly longer in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (361.6 ± 91.9  vs 272.4 ± 83.8 min; P < 0.001), whereas the conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and recovery of pain and bowel motility were similar between both groups. The rates of circumferential resection margin involvement and early complications were similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 4.7% vs 5.0%, P = 1.000; and 23.7% vs 25.9%, P = 0.624, respectively), as were the 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates (93.1% vs 92.2%, P = 0.422; 79.6% vs 81.8%, P = 0.538; 3.9% vs 5.9%, P = 0.313, respectively).The oncologic quality, short- and long-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity in the R-TME group were comparable with those in the L-TME group.

Relationship between diversion colitis and quality of life in rectal cancer

AIM To investigated the incidence of diversion colitis (DC) and impact of DC symptoms on quality of life (QoL) after ileostomy reversal in rectal cancer. METHODS We performed a prospective study with 30 patients who underwent low anterior resection and the creation of a temporary ileostomy for the rectal cancer between January 2008 and July 2009 at the Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital. The participants totally underwent two rounds of the examinations. At first examination, endoscopies, tissue biopsies, and questionnaire survey about the symptom were performed 3-4 mo after the ileostomy creations. At second examination, endoscopies, tissue biopsies, and questionnaire survey about the symptom and QoL were performed 5-6 mo after the ileostomy reversals. Clinicopathological data were based on the histopathological reports and clinical records of the patients. RESULTS At the first examination, all of the patients presented with inflammation, which was mild in 15 (50%) patients, moderate in 11 (36.7%) and severe in 4 (13.3%) by endoscopy and mild in 14 (46.7%) and moderate in 16 (53.3%) by histology. At the second examination, only 11 (36.7%) and 17 (56.7%) patients had mild inflammation by endoscopy and histology, respectively. There was no significant difference in DC grade between the endoscopic and the histological findings at first or second examination. The symptoms detected on the first and second questionnaires were mucous discharge in 12 (40%) and 5 (17%) patients, bloody discharge in 5 (17%) and 3 (10%) patients, abdominal pain in 4 (13%) and 2 (7%) patients and tenesmus in 9 (30%) and 5 (17%) patients, respectively. We found no correlation between the endoscopic or histological findings and the symptoms such as mucous discharge, bleeding, abdominal pain and tenesmus in both time points. Diarrhea was detected in 9 patients at the second examination; this number correlated with the severity of DC (0%, 0%, 66.7%, 33.3% vs 0%, 71.4%, 23.8%, 4.8%, P = 0.001) and the symptom-related QoL (r = -0.791, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION The severity of DC is related to diarrhea after an ileostomy reversal and may adversely affect QoL.

Intraoperative near infrared fluorescence imaging in robotic low anterior resection: three case reports.

The recent introduction of an intraoperative near infrared fluorescence (INIF) imaging system installed on the da Vinci Si® robotic system has enabled surgeons to identify intravascular NIF signals in real time. This technology is useful in identifying hidden vessels and assessing blood supply to bowel segments. In this study, we report 3 cases of patients with rectal cancer who underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) with INIF imaging for the first time in Asia. In September 2012, robotic-assisted rectal resection with INIF imaging was performed on three consecutive rectal cancer patients. LAR was performed in 2 cases, and abdominoperineal resection was performed in the third case. INIF imaging was used to identify the left colic branch of the inferior mesenteric artery and to assess blood supply to the distal rectum. We evaluated the utility of INIF imaging in performing robotic-assisted colorectal procedures. Our preliminary results suggest that this technique is safe and effective, and that INIF imaging may be a useful tool to colorectal surgeons.

Robotic Resection is a Good Prognostic Factor in Rectal Cancer Compared with Laparoscopic Resection: Long-term Survival Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching

BACKGROUND: Robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has rapidly increased and has shown short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. However, data for long-term oncologic outcomes are limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 732 patients who underwent totally robotic (n = 272) and laparoscopic (n = 460) total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer were included in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared clinicopathologic outcomes of patients. In addition, short- and long-term outcomes and prognostic factors for survival were evaluated in the matched robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision groups (224 matched pairs by propensity score). RESULTS: Before case matching, patients in the robotic group were younger, more likely to have undergone preoperative chemoradiation, and had a lower tumor location than those in the laparoscopic group. After case matching most clinicopathologic outcomes were similar between the groups, but operative time was longer and postoperative ileus was more frequent in the robotic group. In the matched patients excluding stage IV, the overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival were better in the robotic group, but did not reach statistical significance. The 5-year survival rates for robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision were 90.5% and 78.0% for overall survival, 90.5% and 79.5% for cancer-specific survival, and 72.6% and 68.0% for disease-free survival. In multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival and cancer-specific survival (p = 0.0040, HR = 0.333; p = 0.0161, HR = 0.367). LIMITATIONS: This study has the potential for selection bias and limited generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer showed long-term survival comparable to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in this study. Robotic surgery was a good prognostic factor for overall survival and cancer-specific survival, suggesting potential oncologic benefits.

Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Surgery for a Tumor-Specific Mesorectal Excision in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Initial Experience With 20 Consecutive Cases

Purpose Single-port plus one-port, reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) may decrease collisions between laparoscopic instruments and the camera in a narrow, bony, pelvic cavity while maintaining the cosmetic advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study is to describe our initial experience with and to assess the feasibility and safety of RPLS for tumor-specific mesorectal excisions (TSMEs) in patients with colorectal cancer. Methods Between May 2010 and August 2012, RPLS for TSME was performed in 20 patients with colorectal cancer. A single port with four channels through an umbilical incision and an additional port in the right lower quadrant were used for RPLS. Results The median operation time was 231 minutes (range, 160-347 minutes), and the estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range, 50-500 mL). We transected the rectum with one laparoscopic stapler in 17 cases (85%). The median time to soft diet was 4 days (range, 3-6 days), and the length of hospital stay was 7 days (range, 5-45 days). The median total number of lymph nodes harvested was 16 (range, 7-36), and circumferential resection margin involvement was found in 1 case (5%). Seven patients (35%) developed postoperative complications, and no mortalities occurred within 30 days. During the median follow-up period of 20 months (range, 12-40 months), liver metastasis occurred in 1 patient 10 months after surgery, and local recurrence was nonexistent. Conclusion RPLS for TSME in patients with colorectal cancer is technically feasible and safe without compromising oncologic safety. However, further studies comparing RPLS with a conventional, laparoscopic low-anterior resection are needed to prove the advantages of the RPLS procedure.

Clinical significance of primary tumor resection in colorectal cancer patients with synchronous unresectable metastasis

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with synchronous unresectable metastases who received either primary tumor resection (PTR) or chemotherapy as the first treatment and to investigate the clinical course of asymptomatic patients who received chemotherapy as the first treatment.

Anastomotic Leakage After Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer Is Different Between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Surgery.

OBJECTIVE To review and compare clinical manifestations of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS). BACKGROUND MIS for rectal cancer has become popular, and its clinical course is different from OS. Many studies have reported on the risk factors and oncologic influence of AL. However, few have directly compared clinical manifestations and risk factors for AL between MIS and OS. METHODS From January 2004 to December 2012, a total of 1704 consecutive patients who underwent elective low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis for rectal cancer were eligible. The variables associated with short-term outcomes and risk factors were analyzed. RESULTS The overall AL incidence was 6.4%. In the MIS-AL group, the time to diagnosis of AL and the time to second operation were shorter. A majority of the patients (77.8%) in the MIS-AL group underwent second MIS operation, whereas none in the OS-AL group. The hospital stays after second MIS were shorter than those after second open operation. Multivariate analyses revealed that male sex, smoking and alcohol intake history, previous abdominal surgery, longer operation times, low-lying tumor, and using 2 or more staplers for distal rectal resection were independent risk factors in the MIS-AL group, whereas smoking and alcohol intake history, operation times, and blood loss were significant in the OS-AL group. CONCLUSIONS The clinical manifestations of and risk factors for AL were different between MIS and OS. AL after MIS may be more influenced by factors related to technical difficulties. Close attention should be given to patients undergoing surgery with risk factors for AL.

The clinical features and optimal treatment of anorectal malignant melanoma

Anorectal malignant melanoma (AMM) is a very rare and aggressive disease. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical features of AMM, to understand treatment options, and optimal therapy by reviewing pertinent literature. Traditionally an abdominoperineal resection (APR) sacrificing the anal sphincter has been performed for radical resection of cancer, but recently, wide excision of AMM is attempted since quality of life after surgery is an important issue. Some authors reported that there was no difference in five-year survival between the patient who underwent an APR and wide excision. The goal of both APR and wide excision was to improve survival with R0 resection. Adjuvant chemoradiation therapy can be performed to achieve an R0 resection. AMM shows very poor prognosis. At this time, research on AMM is insufficient to suggest a treatment guideline. Thus, treatment options, and a therapeutic method should be selected carefully.