Araujo Sergio Eduardo Alonso, Seid Victor Edmond, Klajner Sidney
Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Victor Edmond Seid, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo (SP) 05403-000, Brazil.
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Oct 21;20(39):14359-70. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i39.14359.
Laparoscopic rectal surgery continues to be a challenging operation associated to a steep learning curve. Robotic surgical systems have dramatically changed minimally invasive surgery. Three-dimensional, magnified and stable view, articulated instruments, and reduction of physiologic tremors leading to superior dexterity and ergonomics. Therefore, robotic platforms could potentially address limitations of laparoscopic rectal surgery. It was aimed at reviewing current literature on short-term clinical and oncological (pathological) outcomes after robotic rectal cancer surgery in comparison with laparoscopic surgery. A systematic review was performed for the period 2002 to 2014. A total of 1776 patients with rectal cancer underwent minimally invasive robotic treatment in 32 studies. After robotic and laparoscopic approach to oncologic rectal surgery, respectively, mean operating time varied from 192-385 min, and from 158-297 min; mean estimated blood loss was between 33 and 283 mL, and between 127 and 300 mL; mean length of stay varied from 4-10 d; and from 6-15 d. Conversion after robotic rectal surgery varied from 0% to 9.4%, and from 0 to 22% after laparoscopy. There was no difference between robotic (0%-41.3%) and laparoscopic (5.5%-29.3%) surgery regarding morbidity and anastomotic complications (respectively, 0%-13.5%, and 0%-11.1%). Regarding immediate oncologic outcomes, respectively among robotic and laparoscopic cases, positive circumferential margins varied from 0% to 7.5%, and from 0% to 8.8%; the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was between 10 and 20, and between 11 and 21; and the mean distal resection margin was from 0.8 to 4.7 cm, and from 1.9 to 4.5 cm. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is being undertaken by experienced surgeons. However, the quality of the assembled evidence does not support definite conclusions about most studies variables. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is associated to increased costs and operating time. It also seems to be associated to reduced conversion rates. Other short-term outcomes are comparable to conventional laparoscopy techniques, if not better. Ultimately, pathological data evaluation suggests that oncologic safety may be preserved after robotic total mesorectal excision. However, further studies are required to evaluate oncologic safety and functional results.
腹腔镜直肠手术仍然是一项具有挑战性的手术,且学习曲线较陡。机器人手术系统极大地改变了微创手术。其具有三维、放大且稳定的视野、可弯曲器械,以及减少生理震颤,从而带来更高的灵活性和更好的人体工程学设计。因此,机器人平台有可能解决腹腔镜直肠手术的局限性。本研究旨在回顾与腹腔镜手术相比,机器人直肠癌手术后短期临床和肿瘤学(病理学)结局的相关文献。对2002年至2014年期间进行了系统评价。32项研究中共有1776例直肠癌患者接受了微创机器人治疗。在分别采用机器人手术和腹腔镜手术进行肿瘤性直肠手术后,平均手术时间分别为192 - 385分钟和158 - 297分钟;平均估计失血量分别为33至283毫升和127至300毫升;平均住院时间分别为4 - 10天和6 - 15天。机器人直肠手术后的中转率为0%至9.4%,腹腔镜手术后为0至22%。机器人手术(0% - 41.3%)和腹腔镜手术(5.5% - 29.3%)在发病率和吻合口并发症方面无差异(分别为0% - 13.5%和0% - 11.1%)。关于近期肿瘤学结局,在机器人手术和腹腔镜手术病例中,环周切缘阳性率分别为0%至7.5%和0%至8.8%;平均获取淋巴结数分别为10至20个和11至21个;平均远端切缘分别为0.8至4.7厘米和1.9至4.5厘米。机器人直肠癌手术由经验丰富的外科医生进行。然而,现有证据的质量并不支持对大多数研究变量得出明确结论。机器人直肠癌手术与成本增加和手术时间延长相关。它似乎也与中转率降低有关。其他短期结局即使不比传统腹腔镜技术更好,也与之相当。最终,病理数据评估表明,机器人全直肠系膜切除术后肿瘤学安全性可能得以保留。然而,需要进一步研究来评估肿瘤学安全性和功能结果。