4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Single plus one-port robotic surgery using the da Vinci Single-Site Platform versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer

      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

          Introduction

          Recently, single plus one-port robotic surgery (SPORS) was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-port laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of various diseases.

          Aim

          To compare the clinical and cosmetic outcomes of SPORS with those of multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS), which is presently the standard surgical treatment for colon cancer.

          Material and methods

          The study included 36 patients who underwent SPORS and 61 patients who underwent MPLS for left-sided colon cancer between August 2014 and January 2016. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ) was used to assess cosmetic outcomes.

          Results

          SPORS involved a longer median operative time than MPLS (232 vs. 155 min, p = 0.009). There were no apparent differences in the time before diet tolerance, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, and postoperative complication rate. However, SPORS patients had a shorter total incision length (5.0 vs. 8.0 cm, p < 0.001). The median proximal and distal resection margins and the median number of harvested lymph nodes were comparable between the two groups. The PSAQ favored the SPORS approach, revealing significant differences in appearance (15 vs. 18, p < 0.001), consciousness (9 vs. 11, p < 0.001), satisfaction with appearance (14 vs. 17, p < 0.001), satisfaction with symptoms (9 vs. 10, p = 0.022), and overall score (47 vs. 55, p < 0.001).

          Conclusions

          The clinicopathologic outcomes of SPORS were comparable but its cosmetic outcomes were superior to those of MPLS for left-sided colon cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

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

          Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial.

          Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival. From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. 219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively). LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

            Minimally invasive, laparoscopically assisted surgery was first considered in 1990 for patients undergoing colectomy for cancer. Concern that this approach would compromise survival by failing to achieve a proper oncologic resection or adequate staging or by altering patterns of recurrence (based on frequent reports of tumor recurrences within surgical wounds) prompted a controlled trial evaluation. We conducted a noninferiority trial at 48 institutions and randomly assigned 872 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon to undergo open or laparoscopically assisted colectomy performed by credentialed surgeons. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The primary end point was the time to tumor recurrence. At three years, the rates of recurrence were similar in the two groups--16 percent among patients in the group that underwent laparoscopically assisted surgery and 18 percent among patients in the open-colectomy group (two-sided P=0.32; hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 1.17). Recurrence rates in surgical wounds were less than 1 percent in both groups (P=0.50). The overall survival rate at three years was also very similar in the two groups (86 percent in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 85 percent in the open-colectomy group; P=0.51; hazard ratio for death in the laparoscopic-surgery group, 0.91; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.21), with no significant difference between groups in the time to recurrence or overall survival for patients with any stage of cancer. Perioperative recovery was faster in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-colectomy group, as reflected by a shorter median hospital stay (five days vs. six days, P<0.001) and briefer use of parenteral narcotics (three days vs. four days, P<0.001) and oral analgesics (one day vs. two days, P=0.02). The rates of intraoperative complications, 30-day postoperative mortality, complications at discharge and 60 days, hospital readmission, and reoperation were very similar between groups. In this multi-institutional study, the rates of recurrent cancer were similar after laparoscopically assisted colectomy and open colectomy, suggesting that the laparoscopic approach is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for colon cancer. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease.

              The objectives of this study were to evaluate body image, cosmetic results, and quality of life in patients with Crohn's disease of the terminal ileum who had either laparoscopic-assisted or open ileocolic resection, and to determine how patients experienced the pre- and postoperative periods after both procedures. Thirty-four patients participated: 11 patients after open resection (OR), 11 patients after laparoscopic-assisted resection (LR), and 12 patients without resection (WR). Retrospectively, the patients filled out several questionnaires pertaining to body image, hospital experiences, and quality of life. One-way analysis of variance, Student's t-tests, and Pearson's correlation were used for statistical analysis. The cosmetic score was significantly higher in the LR than in the OR group (p < 0.01). Body image correlated strongly with cosmesis and with quality of life. The hospital experiences of the laparoscopic and open groups were similar. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with better cosmesis than open surgery. Patients do not experience laparoscopic surgery any differently from open surgery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne
                Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne
                WIITM
                Videosurgery and other Miniinvasive Techniques
                Termedia Publishing House
                1895-4588
                2299-0054
                18 January 2022
                March 2022
                : 17
                : 1
                : 179-187
                Affiliations
                Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Korea (South)
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence Seong Kyu Baek MD, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University, 194 Dongsan-Dong, Jung-Gu, Daegu 700-712, Republic of Korea, phone: +82-53-250-8050, fax: +82-53-250-7322. e-mail: sgbeak@ 123456dsmc.or.kr
                Article
                46188
                10.5114/wiitm.2021.112678
                8886472
                35251404
                adee6351-3417-4b30-9578-ad5ccd867c7f
                Copyright: © 2021 Fundacja Videochirurgii

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.

                History
                : 02 November 2021
                : 12 December 2021
                Categories
                Original Paper

                laparoscopy,treatment outcome,colonic neoplasm,robotic surgical procedure,natural orifice endoscopic surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article