Open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal cancer: Medium-term comparative outcomes from a multicenter study

Carlo Corbellini, Roberto Biffi, Fabrizio Luca, Antonio Chiappa, Stefano Costa, Emilio Bertani, Stefano Bona, D. Lombardi, Darina Tamayo, Edoardo Botteri, Bruno Andreoni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Several studies have demonstrated the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic (LS) and open (OS) rectal cancer surgeries and have shown how challenging LS may become. Robotic surgery (RS) has emerged as a practical alternative, offering interesting advantages in comparison to both LS and OS. The aim of this study is to resolve the clinicopathologic outcome advantages of RS with respect to OS and LS techniques. Methods: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing OS, RS, or LS were evaluated within the period from April 2009 to August 2011. The evaluations were carried out in 4 Italian hospitals. Perioperative clinicopathologic data, postoperative complications, and 3-year overall and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were analyzed. Results: A total of 160 patients (94 male, 66 female) were included. A total of 105 patients underwent miniinvasive procedure (40 LS; 65 RS), whereas OS was performed in 55 patients. Anterior resection of rectal cancer was the most performed surgical procedure (139; 87%). Median operation time was significantly longer in the RS group (p<0.01). Regarding complication rates and quality of the surgical specimen evaluation, no statistical difference was found among the 3 groups. The shortest hospital stay (p<0.01) was obtained from the LS and RS groups. The median follow-up was 33 months without any significant difference in overall and DFS rates. Conclusions: Although RS for rectal cancer requires more time to be performed than LS and OS techniques, the analysis shows comparatively the feasibility and safety of RS in terms of perioperative clinicopathologic and medium-term outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)414-421
Number of pages8
JournalTumori
Volume102
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 1 2016

Fingerprint

Robotics
Rectal Neoplasms
Laparoscopy
Multicenter Studies
Disease-Free Survival
Survival Rate
Length of Stay
Safety

Keywords

  • Laparoscopic surgery
  • Medium-term outcome
  • Open surgery
  • Rectal cancer
  • Rectal cancer resection
  • Robotic surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal cancer : Medium-term comparative outcomes from a multicenter study. / Corbellini, Carlo; Biffi, Roberto; Luca, Fabrizio; Chiappa, Antonio; Costa, Stefano; Bertani, Emilio; Bona, Stefano; Lombardi, D.; Tamayo, Darina; Botteri, Edoardo; Andreoni, Bruno.

In: Tumori, Vol. 102, No. 4, 01.07.2016, p. 414-421.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d0b676b16dfe4498ab2cce9bc81680e8,
title = "Open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal cancer: Medium-term comparative outcomes from a multicenter study",
abstract = "Purpose: Several studies have demonstrated the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic (LS) and open (OS) rectal cancer surgeries and have shown how challenging LS may become. Robotic surgery (RS) has emerged as a practical alternative, offering interesting advantages in comparison to both LS and OS. The aim of this study is to resolve the clinicopathologic outcome advantages of RS with respect to OS and LS techniques. Methods: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing OS, RS, or LS were evaluated within the period from April 2009 to August 2011. The evaluations were carried out in 4 Italian hospitals. Perioperative clinicopathologic data, postoperative complications, and 3-year overall and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were analyzed. Results: A total of 160 patients (94 male, 66 female) were included. A total of 105 patients underwent miniinvasive procedure (40 LS; 65 RS), whereas OS was performed in 55 patients. Anterior resection of rectal cancer was the most performed surgical procedure (139; 87{\%}). Median operation time was significantly longer in the RS group (p<0.01). Regarding complication rates and quality of the surgical specimen evaluation, no statistical difference was found among the 3 groups. The shortest hospital stay (p<0.01) was obtained from the LS and RS groups. The median follow-up was 33 months without any significant difference in overall and DFS rates. Conclusions: Although RS for rectal cancer requires more time to be performed than LS and OS techniques, the analysis shows comparatively the feasibility and safety of RS in terms of perioperative clinicopathologic and medium-term outcomes.",
keywords = "Laparoscopic surgery, Medium-term outcome, Open surgery, Rectal cancer, Rectal cancer resection, Robotic surgery",
author = "Carlo Corbellini and Roberto Biffi and Fabrizio Luca and Antonio Chiappa and Stefano Costa and Emilio Bertani and Stefano Bona and D. Lombardi and Darina Tamayo and Edoardo Botteri and Bruno Andreoni",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5301/tj.5000533",
language = "English",
volume = "102",
pages = "414--421",
journal = "Tumori",
issn = "0300-8916",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal cancer

T2 - Medium-term comparative outcomes from a multicenter study

AU - Corbellini, Carlo

AU - Biffi, Roberto

AU - Luca, Fabrizio

AU - Chiappa, Antonio

AU - Costa, Stefano

AU - Bertani, Emilio

AU - Bona, Stefano

AU - Lombardi, D.

AU - Tamayo, Darina

AU - Botteri, Edoardo

AU - Andreoni, Bruno

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Purpose: Several studies have demonstrated the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic (LS) and open (OS) rectal cancer surgeries and have shown how challenging LS may become. Robotic surgery (RS) has emerged as a practical alternative, offering interesting advantages in comparison to both LS and OS. The aim of this study is to resolve the clinicopathologic outcome advantages of RS with respect to OS and LS techniques. Methods: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing OS, RS, or LS were evaluated within the period from April 2009 to August 2011. The evaluations were carried out in 4 Italian hospitals. Perioperative clinicopathologic data, postoperative complications, and 3-year overall and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were analyzed. Results: A total of 160 patients (94 male, 66 female) were included. A total of 105 patients underwent miniinvasive procedure (40 LS; 65 RS), whereas OS was performed in 55 patients. Anterior resection of rectal cancer was the most performed surgical procedure (139; 87%). Median operation time was significantly longer in the RS group (p<0.01). Regarding complication rates and quality of the surgical specimen evaluation, no statistical difference was found among the 3 groups. The shortest hospital stay (p<0.01) was obtained from the LS and RS groups. The median follow-up was 33 months without any significant difference in overall and DFS rates. Conclusions: Although RS for rectal cancer requires more time to be performed than LS and OS techniques, the analysis shows comparatively the feasibility and safety of RS in terms of perioperative clinicopathologic and medium-term outcomes.

AB - Purpose: Several studies have demonstrated the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic (LS) and open (OS) rectal cancer surgeries and have shown how challenging LS may become. Robotic surgery (RS) has emerged as a practical alternative, offering interesting advantages in comparison to both LS and OS. The aim of this study is to resolve the clinicopathologic outcome advantages of RS with respect to OS and LS techniques. Methods: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing OS, RS, or LS were evaluated within the period from April 2009 to August 2011. The evaluations were carried out in 4 Italian hospitals. Perioperative clinicopathologic data, postoperative complications, and 3-year overall and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were analyzed. Results: A total of 160 patients (94 male, 66 female) were included. A total of 105 patients underwent miniinvasive procedure (40 LS; 65 RS), whereas OS was performed in 55 patients. Anterior resection of rectal cancer was the most performed surgical procedure (139; 87%). Median operation time was significantly longer in the RS group (p<0.01). Regarding complication rates and quality of the surgical specimen evaluation, no statistical difference was found among the 3 groups. The shortest hospital stay (p<0.01) was obtained from the LS and RS groups. The median follow-up was 33 months without any significant difference in overall and DFS rates. Conclusions: Although RS for rectal cancer requires more time to be performed than LS and OS techniques, the analysis shows comparatively the feasibility and safety of RS in terms of perioperative clinicopathologic and medium-term outcomes.

KW - Laparoscopic surgery

KW - Medium-term outcome

KW - Open surgery

KW - Rectal cancer

KW - Rectal cancer resection

KW - Robotic surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84984677500&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84984677500&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5301/tj.5000533

DO - 10.5301/tj.5000533

M3 - Article

VL - 102

SP - 414

EP - 421

JO - Tumori

JF - Tumori

SN - 0300-8916

IS - 4

ER -