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

Dae Ro Lim, Byung Soh Min, Min Sung Kim, Sami Alasari, Gangmi Kim, Hyuk Hur, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1379-1385
Number of pages7
JournalSurgical endoscopy
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 Apr

Fingerprint

Sigmoid Neoplasms
Robotics
Colon
Survival Rate
Colonic Neoplasms
Technology
Safety

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Lim, Dae Ro ; Min, Byung Soh ; Kim, Min Sung ; Alasari, Sami ; Kim, Gangmi ; Hur, Hyuk ; Baik, Seung Hyuk ; Lee, Kang Young ; Kim, Nam Kyu. / Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer : Comparative study of long-term oncologic outcomes. In: Surgical endoscopy. 2013 ; Vol. 27, No. 4. pp. 1379-1385.
@article{e343d0910d5b464b884fe587fe960864,
title = "Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer: Comparative study of long-term oncologic outcomes",
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.",
author = "Lim, {Dae Ro} and Min, {Byung Soh} and Kim, {Min Sung} and Sami Alasari and Gangmi Kim and Hyuk Hur and Baik, {Seung Hyuk} and Lee, {Kang Young} and Kim, {Nam Kyu}",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-012-2619-3",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "1379--1385",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer : Comparative study of long-term oncologic outcomes. / Lim, Dae Ro; Min, Byung Soh; Kim, Min Sung; Alasari, Sami; Kim, Gangmi; Hur, Hyuk; Baik, Seung Hyuk; Lee, Kang Young; Kim, Nam Kyu.

In: Surgical endoscopy, Vol. 27, No. 4, 04.2013, p. 1379-1385.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer

T2 - Comparative study of long-term oncologic outcomes

AU - Lim, Dae Ro

AU - Min, Byung Soh

AU - Kim, Min Sung

AU - Alasari, Sami

AU - Kim, Gangmi

AU - Hur, Hyuk

AU - Baik, Seung Hyuk

AU - Lee, Kang Young

AU - Kim, Nam Kyu

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876284376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876284376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-012-2619-3

DO - 10.1007/s00464-012-2619-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 23239297

AN - SCOPUS:84876284376

VL - 27

SP - 1379

EP - 1385

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 4

ER -