4.6 Article

Functional results of robotic total intersphincteric resection with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis

期刊

EJSO
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 841-847

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.007

关键词

Rectal cancer; Robotic surgery; Colorectal surgery; Da Vinci system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In recent decades there has been an increasing trend toward sphincter-preserving procedures for the treatment of low rectal cancer. Robotic surgery is considered to be particularly beneficial when operating in the deep pelvis, where laparoscopy presents technical limitations. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the functional outcomes in patients affected by rectal cancer after robotic total intersphincteric resection (ISR) with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Methods and procedures: From March 2008 to October 2012, 23 consecutive patients affected by distal rectal adenocarcinoma underwent robotic ISR. Operative, clinical, pathological and functional data regarding continence or presence of a low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) were prospectively collected in a database. Results: Twenty-three consecutive patients were included in the study: 8 men and 15 women. The mean age was 60.2 years (range 28-73). Eighteen (78.3%) had neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Conversion rate was nil. The mean operative time was 296.01 min and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.43 +/- 1.73 days. According to Kirwan's incontinence score, good fecal continence was shown in 85.7% of patients (Grade 1 and 2) and none required a colostomy (Grade 4). Concerning LARS score, the results were as follows: 57.1% patients had no LARS; 19% minor LARS and 23.8% major LARS. Conclusions: Robotic total ISR for low rectal cancer is an acceptable alternative to traditional procedures. Extensive discussion with the patient about the risk of poor functional outcomes or LARS syndrome is mandatory when considering an ISR for treatment of low rectal cancer. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据