Assessing appropriateness for elective colorectal cancer surgery: clinical, oncological, and quality-of-life short-term outcomes employing different treatment approaches

Bertani, Emilio; Chiappa, Antonio; Biffi, R.; Bianchi, Paolo Pietro; Radice, Davide; Branchi, Vittorio; Cenderelli, Elena; Vetrano, Irene; Cenciarelli, Sabine; Andreoni, B.

doi:10.1007/s00384-011-1270-0

Cited by 68 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After this process, the reviewers identified 10 studies for a comprehensive review. Three studies were excluded according to the inclusion criteria192021, leaving 7 studies that were included in our analysis22232425262728. The study selection process is shown in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

Liao

Zhao

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −159.11 to −120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: −2.10, 95% CI: −3.47 to −0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: −0.97, 95% CI = −1.06 to −0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: −1.71.95% CI = −3.31 to −0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

Liao

Zhao

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding is evidence that shows our objective decision making in any case to perform any type of minimally invasive rectal resection. Bertani et al 23 suggested that use of a robotic platform for colectomy increases hospital expenses compared to conventional techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Have We Gained by Performing Robotic Rectal Resection? Evaluation of 64 Consecutive Patients Who Underwent Laparoscopic or Robotic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Adenocarcinoma

Ergüner¹,

Aytaç²,

Böler³

et al. 2013

Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy &Amp; Percutaneous Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With respect to morbidity, none of the previous reports comparing RCS and OCS were able to show a significant decrease in complications [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] . This study also found that the frequency of major postoperative complications (ClavienDindo III/IV) did not reach statistical significance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…As mentioned previously, there are only a few studies comparing RCS and OCS [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] . Interestingly, these reports came exclusively from tertiary centers in Korea and Italy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Introduction of Robotic Surgery into a Community Hospital Setting: A Prospective Comparison of Robotic and Open Colorectal Resection for Cancer

Zawadzki¹,

Krzystek−Korpacka

Rząca³

et al. 2017

Dig Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) performed by a team having limited expertise in robotic surgery with open colorectal surgery (OCS) performed by experienced colorectal surgeons. Methods: This was a prospective comparative nonrandomized study. Results: Between March 2013 and June 2015, 79 patients with colon and rectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled into the study. Of these, 41 patients underwent OCS and 38 underwent RCS. The groups were comparable in terms of demographics and type of procedure. The RCS took significantly longer in the operating room than the OCS (222 vs. 141 min, p < 0.001). The rate of major complications was similar for both RCS and OCS (5.3 vs. 9.8%, p = 0.454). Wound infections were less frequent in the RCS group (10.5 vs. 29.3%, p = 0.039). The mean hospital stay was 1 day shorter in the RCS group than in the OCS group (5.7 vs. 6.7 days, p = 0.176). The lymph nodes harvested was comparable (14.7 RCS vs. 15.5 OCS, p = 0.596). Conclusions: This study confirmed that the surgical team with limited expertise in minimally invasive surgery can still safely introduce robotic surgery into their colorectal practice. When compared to the open approach, the robotic approach reduces hospital stay, as well as the rate of surgical site infection.

show abstract

Assessing appropriateness for elective colorectal cancer surgery: clinical, oncological, and quality-of-life short-term outcomes employing different treatment approaches

Abstract: Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries for colorectal cancer present both the same advantages in comparison to open procedures in terms of faster recovery. However, our data do not seem to support the routine use of RCO as a cost-effective procedure.

Cited by 68 publications

References 29 publications

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

What Have We Gained by Performing Robotic Rectal Resection? Evaluation of 64 Consecutive Patients Who Underwent Laparoscopic or Robotic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Adenocarcinoma

Introduction of Robotic Surgery into a Community Hospital Setting: A Prospective Comparison of Robotic and Open Colorectal Resection for Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About