383 464

Cited 50 times in

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer: comparative study of long-term oncologic outcomes

Authors
 Dae Ro Lim  ;  Byung Soh Min  ;  Min Sung Kim  ;  Sami Alasari  ;  Gangmi Kim  ;  Hyuk Hur  ;  Seung Hyuk Baik  ;  Kang Young Lee  ;  Nam Kyu Kim 
Citation
 SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, Vol.27(4) : 1379-1385, 2013 
Journal Title
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES
ISSN
 0930-2794 
Issue Date
2013
MeSH
Adenocarcinoma/surgery* ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Case-Control Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Laparoscopy* ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotics* ; Sigmoid Neoplasms/surgery* ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome
Keywords
Minimally invasive surgery ; Robotic surgery ; Sigmoid colon cancer
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Robotically assisted colon resection is a new type of surgery for colon cancer. However, the evidence is inadequate for the general adaptation of robotic colon surgery. This study aimed to show the oncologic and perioperative clinical results of robotically assisted anterior resection (R-AR) compared with those of laparoscopically assisted anterior resection (L-AR) for sigmoid colon cancer.
METHODS:
A total of 180 patients (sigmoid colon cancer stages 1-3) were assigned to receive either R-AR (n = 34) or L-AR (n = 146) between April 2006 and September 2008. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, and long-term oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS:
The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mean operation time was 217.6 ± 70.7 min for L-AR versus 252.5 ± 94.9 min for R-AR (p = 0.016). The total postoperative complication rate was 10.3 % for R-AR versus 5.9 % for L-AR (p = 0.281). The 3-year overall survival rate for all the patients was 93.4 % for L-AR versus 92.1 % for R-AR (p = 0.723). The 3-year overall survival rate was 100 % for both L-AR and R-AR in stage 1, 95.5 % for L-AR versus 100 % for R-AR (p = 0.386) in stage 2, and 88.4 % for L-AR versus 72.9 % (p = 0.881) for R-AR in stage 3.
CONCLUSION:
In this study, R-AR showed safety and feasibility in terms of perioperative clinical and long-term oncologic outcomes. However, the advanced technologies of R-AR did not translate into better long-term oncologic outcomes compared with L-AR.
Files in This Item:
T201302367.pdf Download
DOI
10.1007/s00464-012-2619-3
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Surgery (외과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kim, Gangmi(김강미)
Kim, Nam Kyu(김남규) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0639-5632
Kim, Min Sung(김민성)
Min, Byung Soh(민병소) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0180-8565
Baik, Seung Hyuk(백승혁) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4183-2332
Lee, Kang Young(이강영)
Lim, Dae Ro(임대로)
Hur, Hyuk(허혁) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9864-7229
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/87313
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links