1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          An increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.

          Methods

          Patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.

          Results

          Between 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13–16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20–24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3–5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6–8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38–46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26–31%)].

          Conclusion

          Rectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09568-1.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer

          Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer.

            The most important surgical complication following rectal resection with anastomosis is symptomatic anastomotic leakage, which is associated with a 6-22 per cent mortality rate. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the risk factors for clinical anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for cancer of the rectum. From 1980 to 1995, 272 consecutive anterior resections for rectal cancer were performed by the same surgical team; 131 anastomoses were situated 5 cm or less from the anal verge. The associations between clinical anastomotic leakage and 19 patient-, tumour-, surgical-, and treatment-related variables were studied by univariate and multivariate analysis. The rate of clinical anastomotic leakage was 12 per cent (32 of 272). Multivariate analysis of the overall population showed that only male sex and level of anastomosis were independent factors for development of anastomotic leakage. The risk of leakage was 6.5 times higher for anastomoses situated less than 5 cm from the anal verge than for those situated above 5 cm; it was 2.7 times higher for men than for women. In a second analysis of low anastomoses (5 cm or less from the anal verge; n = 131), obesity was statistically associated with leakage. A protective stoma is suitable after sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer for anastomoses situated at or less than 5 cm from the anal verge, particularly for men and obese patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                giesenlouis@gmail.com
                Journal
                Surg Endosc
                Surg Endosc
                Surgical Endoscopy
                Springer US (New York )
                0930-2794
                1432-2218
                30 August 2022
                30 August 2022
                2023
                : 37
                : 2
                : 912-920
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.508717.c, ISNI 0000 0004 0637 3764, Department of Surgery, , Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, ; Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]GRID grid.415868.6, ISNI 0000 0004 0624 5690, Department of Surgery, , Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, ; Delft, The Netherlands
                [3 ]GRID grid.461048.f, ISNI 0000 0004 0459 9858, Department of Surgery, , Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, ; Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [4 ]GRID grid.413711.1, ISNI 0000 0004 4687 1426, Department of Surgery, , Amphia Hospital, ; Breda, The Netherlands
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4864-713X
                Article
                9568
                10.1007/s00464-022-09568-1
                9945537
                36042043
                9d08af85-60b3-4750-9a22-3253de50461c
                © The Author(s) 2022

                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/.

                History
                : 22 March 2022
                : 14 August 2022
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article