Selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection: a comparative study of the robotic versus laparoscopic approach
Abstract
Background
Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a challenging procedure due to its technical difficulty and higher incidence of surgical morbidity. We compared short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic LPND in patients with rectal cancer.
Methods
Between May 2006 and December 2014, prospectively collected data from consecutive patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with LPND were retrospectively compared. Patients’ demographics, perioperative outcomes, functional results, and initial oncologic outcomes were analyzed.
Results
Fifty and 35 patients underwent robotic or laparoscopic TME with LPND, respectively. Bilateral LPND was performed in 10 patients (20%) in the robotic group and 6 (17.1%) in the laparoscopic group. For unilateral pelvic dissection, the mean operative time was not significantly different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 41.0 ± 15.8 min vs. 35.3 ± 13.4 min; P = 0.146), but the EBL was significantly lower in the robotic group (34.6 ± 21.9 mL vs. 50.6 ± 23.8 mL; P = 0.002). Two patients (4.0%) in the robotic group and 7 (20.0%) in the laparoscopic group underwent Foley catheter reinsertion for urinary retention postoperatively (P = 0.029). The mean number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPNs) was 6.6 (range 0–25) in the robotic group and 6.4 (range 1–14) in the laparoscopic group. Pathologic LPN metastatic rate was not different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 28.0 vs. 41.2%; P = 0.243). During the median follow-up of 26.3 months, overall recurrence rate was not different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 30.0 vs. 31.2%; P = 0.850). Three patients (6.0%) in the robotic group and 4 (11.4%) in the laparoscopic group developed local recurrence (P = 0.653).
Conclusions
Robotic TME with LPND is safe and feasible with favorable short-term surgical outcomes.
Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-017-5948-4
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5948-4
Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.
Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.