Research ArticleClinical Studies
Open Access

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Following Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy

TATSUKI WATANABE, KAZUHITO SASAKI, HIROAKI NOZAWA, KOJI MURONO, SHIGENOBU EMOTO, HIROYUKI MATSUZAKI, YUICHIRO YOKOYAMA, SHINYA ABE, YUZO NAGAI, TAKAHIDE SHINAGAWA, HIROFUMI SONODA, LIM SUKCHOL and SOICHIRO ISHIHARA
In Vivo July 2024, 38 (4) 1834-1840; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13636

Abstract

Background/Aim: The usefulness of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been reported; however, few reports exist on robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery to determine their usefulness in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who had undergone preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients and Methods: This retrospective study included 43 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative CRT and robotic (22 patients) or laparoscopic APR (21 patients) between December 2012 and September 2022. We examined the short- and long-term outcomes in the robotic and laparoscopic groups. Results: The median follow-up durations were 36 and 48 months for the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. No significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or overall complication rates were observed. However, the incidence of organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly lower in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (9.1% vs. 38.1%, p=0.034) and the 3-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (95% vs. 67%, p=0.029). Conclusion: Robotic APR was associated with a significantly lower rate of organ/space SSIs than the laparoscopic approach, indicating the usefulness of the robotic approach.

Key Words:

Minimally invasive surgery, including robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS), is the mainstay of rectal cancer treatment. RS offers various technical advantages over LS, including three-dimensional visual observation, magnification, camera stability, and high precision of surgical instruments, including articulated forceps (1, 2). In this respect, RS offers flexibility and stability during rectal cancer surgery in patients with a narrow pelvis (3). Several meta-analyses have pointed out the safety and significance of RS in patients with rectal cancer (4-8). In contrast, the ROLLAR trial showed no significant difference in the risk of open conversion between RS and LS for rectal cancer (9); however, subgroup analysis of patients who faced technical difficulties showed a lower open conversion rate in men than in women (9). Furthermore, in the REAL trial, RS showed better short-term outcomes than LS for middle and low rectal cancers ≤10 cm from the anal verge (10). Compared with other rectal cancer surgeries, abdominoperineal resection (APR) requires the deepest pelvic manipulation. Consequently, increased utility of RS is expected; however, few studies have compared robotic APR with other approaches.

APR is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) than other techniques (11-13). Furthermore, although preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for rectal cancer has become the standard treatment, an increased risk of SSIs has been reported with its application (13-15). Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of RS and LS to determine their usefulness in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent APR and preoperative CRT.

Patients and Methods

Patients. This retrospective study included 43 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative CRT and robotic or laparoscopic APR at the University of Tokyo Hospital between December 2012 and September 2022. Clinicopathological findings were described according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer TNM classification (eighth edition) (16). The indications for preoperative CRT were cT3-cT4, any N, and M0. CRT involved long-course radiation with a total dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions and chemotherapy. The standard CRT regimen was a combination of tegafur-uracil (UFT) and leucovorin (LV) for cases registered before October 2018 and UFT, LV, and irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) for cases registered thereafter. The regimen was modified for age and medical history (17). Surgery was performed 6-10 weeks after the completion of CRT. All patients received mechanical bowel preparation (polyethylene glycol or magnesium citrate) and oral antibiotics (metronidazole and kanamycin). All patients underwent conventional APR, and perineal wounds were closed using primary closure.

Regarding the choice of surgical approach, because RS for rectal cancer has been covered by insurance in Japan since April 2018, LS was mainly performed before this date, and RS was the primary procedure thereafter. This study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Tokyo [approval no. 3252-(13)]. Informed consent was obtained in the form of an opt-out option on the website (18).

APR indication criteria. APR was performed in patients with lower advanced rectal cancer in whom securing the anal-side margin was challenging, patients with invasion of the levator ani muscle, and patients at a high risk of postoperative deterioration of anal function. Computed tomography (CT) was used to identify positive lymph node metastasis. Lateral lymph nodes with a diameter ≥8 mm before CRT were considered tumor-positive nodes, and in such cases, selective lateral lymph node dissection was performed after CRT (19).

Outcome variables. The patients were divided into robotic (RG) and laparoscopic (LG) groups. Then, the following clinicopathological factors were evaluated: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status (ASA-PS), diabetes mellitus, chronic steroid use, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), tumor distance from the anal verge, clinical T stage, clinical N stage, period operation, operative time, blood loss, lateral lymph node dissection, conversion to open surgery, tumor size, tumor differentiation, pathological T stage, pathological N stage, and resection margin. Additionally, the following short- and long-term outcomes were assessed: postoperative complication rate, hospital stay, drainage volume and duration, and 3-year overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and local recurrence rates (LRRs). In all patients, a pelvic drain was placed in the anterior sacral plane. The drainage volume from returning to the hospital room to midnight on the second postoperative day was counted as the drainage volume on the first postoperative day; it was measured every 24 hours thereafter. OS was defined as the interval between the date of surgery and the date of death or last follow-up. RFS was measured from the date of surgery to the date of any type of recurrence, death, or last follow-up.

Pathologists evaluated the pathological factors and determined whether the resection margins were positive. Postoperative complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification, and a Clavien-Dindo classification of ≥II was defined as a postoperative complication. Urinary dysfunction was defined as a residual urine volume ≥50 ml after urinary catheter removal (20). Organ/space SSI was defined as a clinical finding of postoperative fever and increased inflammatory response, with intra-abdominal abscess formation on CT or bacteria in the drainage fluid from a perineal wound or from a drain placed in the pelvic cavity.

Statistical analyses. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate, and continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot overall and disease-free survival curves, and log-rank tests were performed. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. All analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Overall, 43 patients were included: 22 and 21 in the RG and LG, respectively. The median follow-up period was 36 months (range=14-59 months) for the RG and 48 months (range=8-133 months) for the LG. Table I shows the patient characteristics and operative findings by group. There were no significant between-group differences in age, sex ratio, BMI, ASA-PS, diabetes mellitus, chronic steroid use, CCI, distance from the anal verge, cT stage, or cN stage. However, there were significant differences in the CRT regimen (p<0.01). The surgical approaches differed significantly according to the operation period, with more LS procedures performed until March 2018 and more RS procedures performed thereafter. No difference in operative time was observed between the groups when the cases of lateral dissection were excluded. No significant differences were found in the volume of intraoperative blood loss or the number of lateral dissection cases, and none of the patients were converted to open surgery.

View this table:
Table I.

Patient characteristics and operative findings.

The pathological outcomes are listed in Table II. No significant difference was found in tumor size and tumor differentiation. However, there were significant differences in the ypT and ypN stages. Three patients in the LG and no patient in the RG had a positive resection margin.

View this table:
Table II.

Pathological outcomes in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups.

Table III lists the postoperative outcomes. Perioperative mortality was not observed in either group. There were no significant differences in the rates of overall complication, ileus, or urinary dysfunction. The incidence of incisional SSIs did not significantly differ between the groups, but that of organ/space SSIs was significantly lower in the RG than in the LG (9.1% vs. 38.1%, p=0.034). No significant difference was found in the postoperative hospital stay duration between the groups.

View this table:
Table III.

Postoperative outcomes in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups.

Table IV shows the drainage volumes from the second to the fourth postoperative day and the duration of postoperative drain retention in all patients, excluding those with complications of ureteral injury. The RG had significantly fewer cases with drainage volumes >500 ml on the fourth postoperative day than the LG (0% vs. 20.0%, p=0.043). No significant differences in the duration of postoperative drainage were observed.

View this table:
Table IV.

Postoperative drainage volume and duration in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups.

The 3-year OS was better in the RG than in the LG (95% vs. 67%, p=0.029); however, the 3-year RFS did not significantly differ (73% vs. 62%, p=0.342) (Figure 1A and B). The 3-year LRRs was also not significantly different between the groups (0% vs. 10%, p=0.121).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Comparison of patient survival among groups. A) Overall survival rates in the robotic (solid line) and laparoscopic (dashed line) surgery groups. B) Relapse-free survival rates in the robotic (solid line) and laparoscopic (dashed line) surgery groups.

Discussion

We found that the incidence of organ/space SSIs was lower, and the 3-year OS was higher in the RG than in the LG, although there were no significant differences in diabetes, chronic steroid use, CCI, and bowel preparation method. Organ/space SSIs lead to poor short-term outcomes, including extended hospital stays and high medical costs (13). The incidence of organ/space SSIs after APR for rectal cancer with preoperative CRT reportedly ranges from 10% to 40% (13, 14, 21). In our study, the incidence was 9.1% in the RG and 38.1% in the LG. According to some reports, APR is an independent risk factor for organ/space SSIs (12, 13), with several potential contributing factors. Accelerated bacterial growth due to fluid accumulation in the pelvic dead space (22), cytokine action due to peritoneal injury (23), and delayed wound healing in irradiated fields due to radiation therapy may affect pelvic floor tissue recovery (24).

There are few reports on the usefulness of RS compared with that of other APR approaches (10, 25-28). In contrast to the present study, in a previous study, which mainly included patients who were not treated preoperatively and excluded those who underwent lateral lymph node dissection, the incidence rates of postoperative urinary dysfunction and postoperative perineal wound infection were lower in the robotic APR group than in the laparoscopic APR group (27). RS may facilitate the dissection of the levator ani muscle and access to the ischiorectal fossa during abdominopelvic manipulation, thereby reducing dead space in the pelvis and perineal wounds (27).

In addition, it has been reported that the postoperative drainage volume is lower, and the drainage duration is shorter with robotic than with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (29). An increase in the drainage volume above a certain threshold may be associated with an increase in the fluid remaining in the dead space in the pelvis, which may be related to the development of organ/space SSIs. Therefore, in this study, we compared the RG and LG based on whether the daily drainage volume exceeded a set criterion. In RS, precise surgical instruments and magnification may facilitate dissection with an optimal dissection surface, resulting in reduced effusion, and this may decrease the incidence of organ/space SSIs.

Furthermore, prolonged operative time is a known risk factor for SSIs (30). In previous studies, RS was associated with a longer operative duration than LS for rectal cancer (3, 5, 8, 31). However, in the present study, we found no significant difference in the operative time between RS and LS. Generally, RS requires additional time outside of the surgical operation (e.g., docking time) (32-34). Moreover, although this study did not examine the time for each manipulation, the operative time for abdominopelvic manipulation might have been longer with RS than with LS because RS allows for a deeper approach to the pelvis with articulated forceps. However, considering that no significant difference in the operative time between RS and LS exists, the perineal manipulation time might be shorter for RS than for LS. Therefore, the reduced operative time for perineal procedures may have contributed to a decreased incidence of organ/space SSIs.

In patients with rectal cancer, organ/space SSIs, including anastomotic leakage, have been reported to be associated with decreased long-term survival (35-37). Although the RG had a better 3-year OS in the present study, this finding is not definitive because of the shorter postoperative observation period in the RG than in the LG. Furthermore, differences in CRT regimens between the RG and LG may have affected the difference between ypT and ypN stages, which may have led to the significant difference in 3-year OS. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of RS resulting in a good long-term prognosis because of the fewer complications associated with organ/space SSIs.

SSI development is an independent risk factor for sepsis (38), and in patients with advanced digestive system cancer, approximately 15% of those with organ/space SSIs developed sepsis (39). Additionally, postoperative sepsis increases the risk of mortality, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs (40). Therefore, the reduced risk of organ/space SSI after APR, as described in this study, is a worthwhile benefit of RS.

Study limitations. First, this was a single-center retrospective study with a small number of patients, thus a multivariate analysis could not be performed. Second, RS for rectal cancer has been covered by insurance in Japan since April 2018. Therefore, a chronological change in the type of procedure performed was observed, with a higher number of LS cases at the beginning of the study period and a subsequent increase in the number of RS cases. Finally, patients in the study also underwent various CRT regimens, which may have influenced the outcomes.

Conclusion

Robotic APR resulted in significantly fewer organ/space SSIs than laparoscopic APR. Therefore, RS may be a useful approach for patients with lower rectal cancer who undergo APR after CRT.

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    All Authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Tatsuki Watanabe, Kazuhito Sasaki, and Soichiro Ishihara. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Tatsuki Watanabe, and all Authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All Authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding

    The Authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

  • Received April 1, 2024.
  • Revision received April 22, 2024.
  • Accepted April 23, 2024.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Shiomi A,
    2. Kinugasa Y,
    3. Yamaguchi T,
    4. Tomioka H,
    5. Kagawa H
    : Robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery: short-term outcomes for 113 consecutive patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 29(9): 1105-1111, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-014-1921-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Yamauchi S,
    2. Hanaoka M,
    3. Iwata N,
    4. Masuda T,
    5. Tokunaga M,
    6. Kinugasa Y
    : Robotic-assisted surgery: expanding indication to colon cancer in Japan. J Anus Rectum Colon 6(2): 77-82, 2022. DOI: 10.23922/jarc.2021-073
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Kim MJ,
    2. Park SC,
    3. Park JW,
    4. Chang HJ,
    5. Kim DY,
    6. Nam BH,
    7. Sohn DK,
    8. Oh JH
    : Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A Phase II open label prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267(2): 243-251, 2018. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002321
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Broholm M,
    2. Pommergaard HC,
    3. Gögenür I
    : Possible benefits of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery regarding urological and sexual dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 17(5): 375-381, 2015. DOI: 10.1111/codi.12872
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Prete FP,
    2. Pezzolla A,
    3. Prete F,
    4. Testini M,
    5. Marzaioli R,
    6. Patriti A,
    7. Jimenez-Rodriguez RM,
    8. Gurrado A,
    9. Strippoli GFM
    : Robotic versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 267(6): 1034-1046, 2018. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002523
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Hoshino N,
    2. Sakamoto T,
    3. Hida K,
    4. Sakai Y
    : Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence. Surg Today 49(7): 556-570, 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-019-1763-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Liao G,
    2. Zhao Z,
    3. Deng H,
    4. Li X
    : Comparison of pathological outcomes between robotic rectal cancer surgery and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis based on seven randomized controlled trials. Int J Med Robot 15(5): e2027, 2019. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2027
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Han C,
    2. Yan P,
    3. Jing W,
    4. Li M,
    5. Du B,
    6. Si M,
    7. Yang J,
    8. Yang K,
    9. Cai H,
    10. Guo T
    : Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Asian J Surg 43(9): 880-890, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.11.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Jayne D,
    2. Pigazzi A,
    3. Marshall H,
    4. Croft J,
    5. Corrigan N,
    6. Copeland J,
    7. Quirke P,
    8. West N,
    9. Rautio T,
    10. Thomassen N,
    11. Tilney H,
    12. Gudgeon M,
    13. Bianchi PP,
    14. Edlin R,
    15. Hulme C,
    16. Brown J
    : Effect of robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(16): 1569-1580, 2017. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.7219
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Feng Q,
    2. Yuan W,
    3. Li T,
    4. Tang B,
    5. Jia B,
    6. Zhou Y,
    7. Zhang W,
    8. Zhao R,
    9. Zhang C,
    10. Cheng L,
    11. Zhang X,
    12. Liang F,
    13. He G,
    14. Wei Y,
    15. Xu J, REAL Study Group
    : Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 7(11): 991-1004, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00248-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. den Dulk M,
    2. Putter H,
    3. Collette L,
    4. Marijnen CAM,
    5. Folkesson J,
    6. Bosset JF,
    7. Rödel C,
    8. Bujko K,
    9. Påhlman L,
    10. van de Velde CJH
    : The abdominoperineal resection itself is associated with an adverse outcome: The European experience based on a pooled analysis of five European randomised clinical trials on rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 45(7): 1175-1183, 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.039
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Kamrava A,
    2. Mahmoud NN
    : Prevention and management of nonhealing perineal wounds. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 26(2): 106-111, 2013. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1348049
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Thorgersen EB,
    2. Goscinski MA,
    3. Spasojevic M,
    4. Solbakken AM,
    5. Mariathasan AB,
    6. Boye K,
    7. Larsen SG,
    8. Flatmark K
    : Deep pelvic surgical site infection after radiotherapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 24(3): 721-728, 2017. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5621-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Schiffmann L,
    2. Wedermann N,
    3. Gock M,
    4. Prall F,
    5. Klautke G,
    6. Fietkau R,
    7. Rau B,
    8. Klar E
    : Intensified neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer enhances surgical complications. BMC Surg 13: 43, 2013. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-13-43
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Nagata M,
    2. Matsuda T,
    3. Hasegawa H,
    4. Utsumi M,
    5. Yamashita K,
    6. Yamamoto M,
    7. Kanaji S,
    8. Oshikiri T,
    9. Nakamura T,
    10. Suzuki S,
    11. Kakeji Y
    : Usefulness of omentoplasty to reduce perineal wound complications in abdominoperineal resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Anticancer Res 40(11): 6539-6543, 2020. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14678
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Brierley JD,
    2. Gospodarowicz MK,
    3. Wittekind C
    : UICC TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 8th eds. Oxford, UK, Wiley Blackwell, 2017.
  17. ↵
    1. Kawai K,
    2. Sunami E,
    3. Hata K,
    4. Tanaka T,
    5. Nishikawa T,
    6. Otani K,
    7. Sasaki K,
    8. Nozawa H
    : Phase I/II study of preoperative chemoradiotherapy with TEGAFIRI for locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 17(3): 240-246, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2018.05.010
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    Department of Oncology and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo. Available at: http://all-1su.umin.jp/custom8.html [Last accessed on April 23, 2024]
  19. ↵
    1. Kawai K,
    2. Shiratori H,
    3. Hata K,
    4. Nozawa H,
    5. Tanaka T,
    6. Nishikawa T,
    7. Murono K,
    8. Ishihara S
    : Optimal size criteria for lateral lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 64(3): 274-283, 2021. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001866
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Ito M,
    2. Kobayashi A,
    3. Fujita S,
    4. Mizusawa J,
    5. Kanemitsu Y,
    6. Kinugasa Y,
    7. Komori K,
    8. Ohue M,
    9. Ota M,
    10. Akazai Y,
    11. Shiozawa M,
    12. Yamaguchi T,
    13. Akasu T,
    14. Moriya Y, Colorectal Cancer Study Group of Japan Clinical Oncology Group
    : Urinary dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery: Results from a randomized trial comparing mesorectal excision with and without lateral lymph node dissection for clinical stage II or III lower rectal cancer (Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study, JCOG0212). Eur J Surg Oncol 44(4): 463-468, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.015
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Vermeer TA,
    2. Orsini RG,
    3. Daams F,
    4. Nieuwenhuijzen GA,
    5. Rutten HJ
    : Anastomotic leakage and presacral abscess formation after locally advanced rectal cancer surgery: Incidence, risk factors and treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 40(11): 1502-1509, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.03.019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Pang J,
    2. Broyles JM,
    3. Berli J,
    4. Buretta K,
    5. Shridharani SM,
    6. Rochlin DH,
    7. Efron JE,
    8. Sacks JM
    : Abdominal-versus thigh-based reconstruction of perineal defects in patients with cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 57(6): 725-732, 2014. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000103
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Sammour T,
    2. Kahokehr A,
    3. Soop M,
    4. Hill AG
    : Peritoneal damage: the inflammatory response and clinical implications of the neuro-immuno-humoral axis. World J Surg 34(4): 704-720, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-009-0382-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. de Lussanet QG,
    2. Backes WH,
    3. Griffioen AW,
    4. Padhani AR,
    5. Baeten CI,
    6. van Baardwijk A,
    7. Lambin P,
    8. Beets GL,
    9. van Engelshoven JM,
    10. Beets-Tan RG
    : Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of radiation therapy-induced microcirculation changes in rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63(5): 1309-1315, 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.04.052
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Moghadamyeghaneh Z,
    2. Phelan M,
    3. Smith BR,
    4. Stamos MJ
    : Outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic abdominoperineal resections in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 58(12): 1123-1129, 2015. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000475
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Kamali D,
    2. Reddy A,
    3. Imam S,
    4. Omar K,
    5. Jha A,
    6. Jha M
    : Short-term surgical outcomes and patient quality of life between robotic and laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 99(8): 607-613, 2017. DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2017.0093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Kasai S,
    2. Kagawa H,
    3. Shiomi A,
    4. Hino H,
    5. Manabe S,
    6. Yamaoka Y,
    7. Kato S,
    8. Hanaoka M,
    9. Kinugasa Y
    : Advantages of robotic abdominoperineal resection compared with laparoscopic surgery: a single-center retrospective study. Surg Today 52(4): 643-651, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02359-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Feng Q,
    2. Tang W,
    3. Zhang Z,
    4. Wei Y,
    5. Ren L,
    6. Chang W,
    7. Zhu D,
    8. Liang F,
    9. He G,
    10. Xu J
    : Robotic versus laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections for low rectal cancer: A single-center randomized controlled trial. J Surg Oncol 126(8): 1481-1493, 2022. DOI: 10.1002/jso.27076
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Ye SP,
    2. Zhu WQ,
    3. Liu DN,
    4. Lei X,
    5. Jiang QG,
    6. Hu HM,
    7. Tang B,
    8. He PH,
    9. Gao GM,
    10. Tang HC,
    11. Shi J,
    12. Li TY
    : Robotic-vs. laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China. World J Gastrointest Oncol 12(4): 424-434, 2020. DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v12.i4.424
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Korol E,
    2. Johnston K,
    3. Waser N,
    4. Sifakis F,
    5. Jafri HS,
    6. Lo M,
    7. Kyaw MH
    : A systematic review of risk factors associated with surgical site infections among surgical patients. PLoS One 8(12): e83743, 2013. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083743
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Yoshida T,
    2. Homma S,
    3. Ichikawa N,
    4. Fujiyoshi S,
    5. Shibata K,
    6. Imaizumi K,
    7. Taketomi A
    : Feasibility of laparoscopic and robotic total proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis-related colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 43(11): 5245-5252, 2023. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16726
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Iranmanesh P,
    2. Morel P,
    3. Wagner OJ,
    4. Inan I,
    5. Pugin F,
    6. Hagen ME
    : Set-up and docking of the da Vinci Surgical System: prospective analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robot 6(1): 57–60, 2010. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.288
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Iranmanesh P,
    2. Morel P,
    3. Buchs NC,
    4. Pugin F,
    5. Volonte F,
    6. Kreaden US,
    7. Hagen ME
    : Docking of the da Vinci Si Surgical System® with single-site technology. Int J Med Robot 9(1): 12-16, 2013. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1481
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. van der Schans EM,
    2. Hiep MAJ,
    3. Consten ECJ,
    4. Broeders IAMJ
    : From Da Vinci Si to Da Vinci Xi: realistic times in draping and docking the robot. J Robot Surg 14(6): 835-839, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01057-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. Mirnezami A,
    2. Mirnezami R,
    3. Chandrakumaran K,
    4. Sasapu K,
    5. Sagar P,
    6. Finan P
    : Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak. Ann Surg 253(5): 890-899, 2011. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182128929
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Krarup PM,
    2. Nordholm-Carstensen A,
    3. Jorgensen LN,
    4. Harling H
    : Anastomotic leak increases distant recurrence and long-term mortality after curative resection for colonic cancer. Ann Surg 259(5): 930-938, 2014. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a6f2fc
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Park JS,
    2. Huh JW,
    3. Park YA,
    4. Cho YB,
    5. Yun SH,
    6. Kim HC,
    7. Lee WY
    : Risk factors of anastomotic leakage and long-term survival after colorectal surgery. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(8): e2890, 2016. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002890
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Cohen NS,
    2. Bock JM,
    3. May AK
    : Sepsis and postoperative surgical site infections. Surgery 174(2): 403-405, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.01.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Sun C,
    2. Gao H,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Pei L,
    5. Huang Y
    : Risk stratification for organ/space surgical site infection in advanced digestive system cancer. Front Oncol 11: 705335, 2021. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.705335
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Vogel TR,
    2. Dombrovskiy VY,
    3. Carson JL,
    4. Graham AM,
    5. Lowry SF
    : Postoperative sepsis in the United States. Ann Surg 252(6): 1065-1071, 2010. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181dcf36e
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Reprints and Permissions
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Following Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy
TATSUKI WATANABE, KAZUHITO SASAKI, HIROAKI NOZAWA, KOJI MURONO, SHIGENOBU EMOTO, HIROYUKI MATSUZAKI, YUICHIRO YOKOYAMA, SHINYA ABE, YUZO NAGAI, TAKAHIDE SHINAGAWA, HIROFUMI SONODA, LIM SUKCHOL, SOICHIRO ISHIHARA
In Vivo Jul 2024, 38 (4) 1834-1840; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13636
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords