Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Rezumat
Abordul robotic n cancerul de rect: experiena primelor
100 de cazuri
Introducere: n ultimele decenii apariia tehnicilor de chirurgie
minimal invaziv a revoluionat printre altele i chirurgia
general. n pofida avantajelor oferite de aceste tehnici, n
procedurile complexe (printre care se numr i chirurgia
cancerului de rect) laparoscopia nu a reuit s se impun datorit
curbei de nvare lungi i ratei de conversie relativ ridicate.
Scopul acestei lucrri este de a prezenta experiena unui singur
centru n abordul robotic al cancerului de rect, analiznd
rezultatele postoperatorii imediate i pe termen mediu.
Material i metod: n perioada ianuarie 2008-iunie 2012 au
fost efectuate 100 de rezecii robotice consecutive la pacieni
cu cancer de rect. Au fost analizate retrospectiv datele
demografice, de anatomie patologic precum i rezultatele
postoperatorii imediate i supravieuirea pe termen mediu.
Rezultate: Au fost efectuate prin abord robotic 77 de rezecii
anterioare i rezecii anterioare joase i 23 de rezecii abdominoperineale. 4 cazuri au fost convertite la abordul clasic. Timpul
operator mediu pentru procedurile cu prezervare de sfincter a
fost 180 minute, iar pentru rezeciile abdomino-perineale de
160 de minute. Marginile de rezecie au fost n medie de 3 cm.
Corresponding author:
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive techniques have revolutionized
the field of general surgery over the few last decades. Despite its
advantages, in complex procedures such as rectal surgery,
laparoscopy has not achieved a high penetration rate because of
its steep learning curve, its relatively high conversion rate and
technical challenges. The aim of this study was to present a
single center experience with robotic surgery for rectal cancer
focusing mainly on early and mid-term postoperative outcome.
Methods: A series of 100 consecutive patients who underwent robotic rectal surgery between January 2008 and June
2012 was analyzed retrospectively in terms of demographics,
144
Introduction
Since 1826, when Jacques Lisfranc performed the first rectal
excision (1), the field of rectal surgery has expanded widely,
with significant advances including transsphincteric resection
and abdominoperineal resection (APR). There are 2 significant landmarks in the surgical approach for rectal cancer: the
anterior resection, which was introduced in 1930, and the
total mesorectal excision (TME), which was proposed by Heald
in 1982.
In the early 1990s, new major technical advances made the
minimally invasive approach in rectal cancer surgery possible.
The first laparoscopic colon resection was performed in 1991
(2,3). Compared with colon resection, laparoscopic rectal
resections require careful consideration as a result of
additional concerns regarding an accurate total mesorectal
excision and, consequently, the possibility of compromising
the oncological outcome in cases of incomplete TME. A
laparoscopic procedure should follow the same oncological
principles as an open procedure.
Recent studies revealed better short-terms outcomes and
similar oncological outcomes compared to open surgery (4,5).
Because of the steep learning curve (most authors demonstrated
that approximately 50-70 cases are needed to overcome the
learning curve) and to the fact that laparoscopic rectal resection
is a technically challenging procedure (6) in this particular field,
laparoscopic surgery could not achieve the impact that it has in
cases of different pathology (e.g., cholecystectomy, splenic
surgery, GE junction surgery). The main challenge of laparoscopic surgery is the use of straight rigid instruments in a deep,
narrow space.
Robotic surgery was developed in response to the limitations of laparoscopic surgery; it can provide surgeons with a
tridimensional view and the ability to control the operative
field by manipulating the camera, as well as enhanced
dexterity and precision due to the EndoWrist Instruments with
7 degrees of freedom (7). Recent studies reported a lower
learning curve compared to laparoscopic surgery (8,9) and
highlighted the intraoperative advantages and positive
short-term outcomes. The major inconvenience of robotic
surgery is related to its high cost, regarding both the equipment
and the disposable instruments, so the question that needs to
be answered in the near future is whether such an expense is
justified in the treatment of rectal cancer.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the morbidity,
oncological outcomes and the quality of life in a consecutive
series of 100 patients undergoing robotic rectal procedures
performed at a single institution.
145
Operative technique
In 2008, robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed
using the Da Vinci S Surgical System; since 2009, the Da
Vinci Si Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale,
CA, USA) has been used in robotic rectal resections for a
four-arm full robotic procedure.
In cases of upper rectal cancer preoperative colonoscopic
tattooing using an injection method with prepackaged sterile
India ink for the localization of the inferior margin of the
tumor was performed. Mechanical bowel operation was
performed the day before surgery. Prophylaxis with antibiotics
and treatment for thrombosis were performed in the same way
as for open rectal surgery. After the induction of general
anesthesia, the patient was placed in a modied lithotomy
position with the legs abducted and slightly flexed at the
knees, and the patient's left arm was placed alongside the
body. The position was secured with a vacuum-mattress device.
Peritoneum of 10-12 mm Hg was achieved with a Veress
needle inserted 2-3 cm to the right and superior to the
umbilicus, and a 12-mm trocar for the camera was placed. A
30 0 down-looking endoscope was used. Four additional trocars
were inserted as follows: one in the right iliac fossa 10 cm from
the camera port, in the upper abdomen, slightly to the left;
one in the left iliac fossa, on the spino-umbilical line, while
the robotic ports and a laparoscopic trocar for the side assistant
were placed in the right abdominal flank, 8 cm from the
camera and right arm ports. The patients were placed in 30degree Trendelenburg position and tilted right-side down. The
Da Vinci system was docked over the patients left hip. For
vascular access, left colon mobilization and splenic flexure
146
Statistical analysis
Data were expressed as the median (range) for continuous
variable and number (percentage) for categorical variables.
Overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method.
Results
The clinical characteristics of patients who underwent robotic
rectal resections are listed in Table 1. There were 66 males and
34 females. The median age was 62 years. BMI ranged from
16.4 to 38. Almost half of the patients had significant
comorbidities (mainly cardiovascular diseases). Previous
abdominal surgery was not a contraindication or a reason for
conversion to open surgery. Over half of patients (58%)
received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). The tumor
was located in the lower rectum in 31 cases, in the mid rectum
in 39 cases and in the upper rectum in 30 cases.
Thirty patients underwent robotic anterior resection for
upper rectal cancer, and 39 patients underwent low anterior
resection for mid rectal cancer. In cases of low rectal cancer,
we performed robotic abdominoperineal resection in 23
cases, and in 8 cases an ultraLAR with hand-sewn coloanal
anastomosis was performed (Table 2).
There were 7 patients with stage 4 rectal cancer. In three
cases of stage 4 rectal cancer with synchronous resectable liver
metastasis, an open liver resection was performed. In 4 cases,
there were multiple unresectable liver metastases, and the
patients underwent robotic rectal resection only. Diverting loop
ileostomy was performed in 64 cases of sphincter-saving surgery
(83%). In 3 cases, virtual ileostomies were performed. There
was no need to open the ileostomy in these cases. The robotic
procedure was converted in 4 cases owing to the extension of
the disease to adjacent organs, which was not diagnosed preoperatively. There was no conversion for intraoperative
bleeding. The median operative time for sphincter-saving
procedures was 180 min. The median time for robotic
abdominoperineal resection was 160 min. Estimated blood loss
ranged between 0 and 250 ml.
The overall morbidity rate was 30%. In 18% of patients,
a surgical complication occurred (Table 3). In 12 patients,
these complications were managed conservatively. The most
frequent cause of postoperative morbidity was anastomotic
66
34
62
26
48
19
32-84
16.4-38
31
39
30
58
23
30
39
8
64
4
180
160
150
3.75
3
14
5
24
43
21
7
-18, G2-8,
10
24
83%
100-330
85-255
0-250
0.5-12 cm
0.2-7 cm
4-32
G2-3 -5
6-38
9-63
Treatment
1-Open reoperation
2-Open reoperation
revision surgery for
failed colo-anal anastomosis
6-Conservative treatment
Open reoperation
Open reoperation
Open reoperation
(Intestinal suture)
Conservative, ERCP
CT drainage
Conservative
147
Figure 1.
Number of cases-12
1
2
1
4
4
Overall survival
Discussion
The Medline electronic database was reviewed using PubMed
in order to identify articles focusing on robotic colorectal
surgery that were published until June 2012. Because
oncological outcomes and short-term outcomes could be
affected by the learning curve, we decided to analyze only
studies based on 50 patients or more who underwent
robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer. We found 7 articles
with a total number of 530 patients. All the studies were
published in the last few years (2009-2011), indicating an
increasing and rapidly growing interest in the field of
robotic rectal resection (Table 5).
The results of these studies were compared to our findings,
and in addition, there are several topics to be discussed
regarding the learning curve, cost, quality of life and the
robotic approach in patients with stage 4 rectal cancers with
liver metastasis.
148
Table 5.
Authors /
Year of publication /
Journal
Zimmern et al. /
2010 /
World J Surg (20)
No of
cases
Procedure
type
Surgical
technique
58
47 LAR,
Hybrid
11 APR
100
56
143
64
50
59
98%
sphinctersaving
surgery
56 LAR
80 LAR
32 CA
31 APR
34 LAR
18 CA
12 APR
40 LAR
8 ISR
Operative
time mean
(range)
308.8 APR
Conversion
Leak
Morbidity
1.7%
36.6%
APR
Length of
stay mean
(range)
6.3-6.7
LAR
324.4-380.7 LAR
Follow-up
(months)
10.3 APR
10.3 APR
12.9-20.7
LAR
11.76.7
5.71.1, 5
(5-10)
8.3
(2-33)
14.3
385102.6
2%
8.2%
23.4%
LAR
20%
Hybrid
178
(120-315)
297
(90-660)
1.7%
10.7%
4.9%
10.5%
41.3%
270
(150-540)a
9.4%
7.7%
35.9%
5
(2-33)a
20.2
304.8
(190-485)
8.3%
18%
9.2(5-24)
13.6%
32.2%
15
Totally
robotic,
hybrid
Hybrid
Singlestage
totally
robotic
2 APR
54 LAR
Single270
stage
(241-325)a
5 ISR
totally
robotic
+ = multicentric; * = comparative; a = median; ISR= intrasphincteric resection;
17.4
149
Quality of life
To demonstrate the benefits of robotic surgery, one of the main
parameters to evaluate, along with oncological outcomes, is the
quality of life. The technical benefits of robotic surgery, such as
improved tridimensional views, tremor elimination and
enhanced dexterity, should result in a better preservation of the
pelvic autonomic nerves and better quality of life. There are a
few danger zones related to nerve preservation. These zones
include the origin of the IMA, at the level of sacral
promontory; most important, there is a high risk of injuring the
nerves during the anterior and lateral dissection. Most
frequently, the postoperative urinary and sexual complications
result from damage to the parasympathetic nerves, which are
located deeper in the pelvis (35). In the laparoscopic approach,
the straight, rigid instruments approach the proper dissection
plane at an acute angle, which results in increased urinary and
sexual complications in these patients as a result of nerve injury
at this level. In the robotic approach, the articulated
instruments and 3-D view allow us to approach the plane in the
same fashion as in open surgery. A balance must be found
between preserving the right oncologic plane and preserving the
pelvic nerves.
A recent published review on sexual dysfunction and
quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer reported a
percentage that varied from 5 to 88% regarding sexual
dysfunction in men and was approximately 50% in women
(36). Regarding urinary and sexual function after laparoscopic
TME, a study published recently by Jin-Tung Liang et al. (37)
showed poor voiding function after removal of the Foley
catheter in 5.4% of cases, and in male patients, poor sexual
function (e.g., failure to ejaculate, retrograde ejaculation) was
found in 25% of cases. Another study, published in 2011 by
Sartori et al., showed severe urinary complication in 3% of
cases, impaired sexual function in almost half the cases and
poor sexual function in 30% of cases (38).
Jayne et al. reported that in men, overall sexual function
and erectile function tended to be worse after laparoscopic
compared to open rectal surgery (39).
Only 2 papers have reported sexual and voiding function
after robotic TME. Kim et al. reported that robotic total
mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is associated with earlier
recovery of normal voiding and sexual function when
compared to the laparoscopic approach (40). Patriti et al.
reported erectile dysfunction in the first 2 of 29 patients
undergoing robotic LAR, which may have resulted from the
learning curve (23).
In our series, 4 of 100 patients presented transitory post-
150
Conclusion
Robotic surgery has advantages for both surgeons (in that it
facilitates the dissection in the narrow pelvis and in cases
of bulky tumors and it allows the surgeon to perform safe
sphincter-saving procedures in a high number of patients) and
patients (in that it allows for a good quality of life via the
preservation of sexual and urinary function in the vast
majority of patients and it has low morbidity and good midterm oncological outcomes). Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is
expected to overcome the low penetration rate of laparoscopy
in this field.
Operative time is not impaired by the robotic approach.
Currently, the only limitation of the use of the robotic
approach on a larger scale is its high cost, but improving
the OR time and case volume in dedicated centers can
partially compensate for its disadvantages. Our results
suggest that in rectal cancer surgery, the robotic approach is
a promising alternative.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank doctor Traian Dumitrascu for his
help with the statistical part.
15.
16.
Disclosures
Oana Stanciulea MD, Mihai Eftimie MD, Leonard David
MD, Victor Tomulescu PhD, Catalin Vasilescu PhD, Irinel
Popescu PhD have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to
disclose.
17.
18.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
151
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
A, Casciola L. Short- and medium-term outcome of robotassisted and traditional laparoscopic rectal resection. JSLS.
2009;13(2):176-83.
Pigazzi A, Luca F, Patriti A, Valvo M, Ceccarelli G, Casciola L,
et al. Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal
excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol.
2010;17(6):1614-20.
Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A, Spinoglio G, Zampino MG,
Sonzogni A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal
excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological
safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(11):288894.
Vasilescu C, Tomulescu V, Clin I, Nuraltay E. Anterior resection
of the rectum via laparoscopy. Chirurgia (Bucur). 1998; 93(1):438. Romanian
Tomulescu V, Stnciulea O, Blescu I, Vasile S, Tudor S,
Gheorghe C, et al. First year experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery with 153 cases in a general surgery department:
indications, technique and results. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2009;104(2):
141-50.
Bianchi PP, Rosati R, Bona S, Rottoli M, Elmore U, Ceriani
C, et al. Laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a prospective
analysis of patient survival and outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum.
2007;50(12):2047-53. Epub 2007 Sep 29.
Delgado S, Mombln D, Salvador L, Bravo R, Castells A,
Ibarzabal A, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted approach in rectal
cancer patients: lessons learned from >200 patients. Surg
Endosc. 2004;18(10):1457-62.
Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lam SC, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Ng SS, et al.
Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective
randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9416):1187-92.
Baek JH, McKenzie S, Garcia-Aguilar J, Pigazzi A. Oncologic
outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for the
treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):882-6.
Popescu I, Tomulescu V, Hrehore D, Kosa A. Laparoscopic
liver surgery: analyze the experience on 36 cases. Chirurgia