Page 22 - World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Michail A Kirmanidis, Christodoulos Keskinis
which can be explained once more due to some of the 10. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG,
structural advantages of the RS like the three-dimensional Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM; MRC CLASICC trial group.
29
view, for instance. But, acceptable outcomes can be Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-
fulfilled with simultaneously practical exercise. 29 assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC
CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
Lancet 2005 May;365(9472):1718-1726.
COnCLuSIOn 11. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G,
Bonjer HJ, Haglind E, Påhlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, et al.
It is common even for meta-analyses reviewing the same Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer:
parameters to present contradictory results in the litera- short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2005
ture. As a result, we conclude that the benefits from the Jul;6(7):477-484.
RS in all the procedures related to colorectal cancer are 12. Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, Nam BH, Choi HS, Kim DW,
currently under scientific investigation. Hopefully, the Lim SB, Lee TG, Kim DY, Kim JS, et al. Open versus laparo-
benefits will be more clearly defined in the near future. scopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant
chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of
We suggest for more standardized controlled studies an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010
and meta-analyses to be performed in the future, as to Jul;11(7):637-645.
evaluate the current data and the long-term outcomes of 13. Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lam SC, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Ng SS, Lai PB,
our parameters. The heterogeneity was more obvious in Lau WY. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma:
the right colectomy procedure than in the others, but all prospective randomised trial. Lancet 2004 Apr;363(9416):
1187-1192.
the results should be better stabilized. 14. Lezoche E, Feliciotti F, Paganini AM, Guerrieri M, De Sanctis A,
Minervini S, Campagnacci R. Laparoscopic vs open hemi-
CLInICAL SIGnIFICAnCE colectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 2002 Apr;16(4):
596-602.
In fact, it is very crucial to establish whether the RS is 15. Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ,
more beneficial than the LS or the opposite. Patients with Beart RW Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Nelson H,
morbidity factors would have to be aware of the positive et al. Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open
aspect of each method for every procedure. surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group
trial. Ann Surg 2007 Oct;246(4):655-662.
REFEREnCES 16. Pai A, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Melich G, Sulo S, Prasad LM.
Oncologic and clinicopathologic outcomes of robot-assisted
1. Formisano G, Misitano P, Giuliani G, Calamati G, Salvischiani L, total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum
Bianchi PP. Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy: 2015 Jul;58(7):659-667.
technique and outcomes. Updates Surg 2016 Mar;68(1):63-69. 17. Petrucciani N, Sirimarco D, Nigri GR, Magistri P, La Torre M,
2. Ferrara F, Piagnerelli R, Scheiterle M, Di Mare G, Gnoni P, Aurello P, D’Angelo F, Ramacciato G. Robotic right colectomy:
Marrelli D, Roviello F. Laparoscopy versus robotic surgery a worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials
for colorectal cancer: a single-center initial experience. Surg comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy. J
Innov 2016 Aug;23(4):374-380. Minim Access Surg 2015 Jan-Mar;11(1):22-28.
3. Sawada H, Egi H, Hattori M, Suzuki T, Shimomura M, 18. Yu HY, Friedlander DF, Patel S, Hu JC. The current status of
Tanabe K, Okajima M, Ohdan H. Initial experiences of robotic robotic oncologic surgery. CA Cancer J Clin 2013 Jan;63(1):45-56.
versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal 19. Wedmid A, Llukani E, Lee DI. Future perspectives in robotic
cancer, focusing on short-term outcomes: a matched case- surgery. BJU Int 2011 Sep;108(6 Pt 2):1028-1036.
control study. World J Surg Oncol 2015 Mar;13:103. 20. Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R, Cavaliere D, Avenia N,
4. Trinh BB, Jackson NR, Hauch AT, Hu T, Kandil E. Robotic Sciannameo F, Gullà N, Noya G, Boselli C. Robotic resec-
versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. JSLS 2014 Oct;18(4): tion compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer:
e2014.00187. systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome.
5. Trinh BB, Hauch AT, Buell JF, Kandil E. Robot-assisted Colorectal Dis 2012 Apr;14(4):e134-e156.
versus standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery. JSLS 2014 21. Baek SK, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A. Robotic surgery: colon
Oct-Dec;18(4):e2014.00154. and rectum. Cancer J 2013 Mar-Apr;19(2):140-146.
6. Zeng WG, Zhou ZX. Mini-invasive surgery for colorectal 22. Altieri MS, Yang J, Telem DA, Zhu J, Halbert C, Talamini M,
cancer. Chin J Cancer 2014 Jun;33(6):277-284. Pryor AD. Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal
7. Xu H, Li J, Sun Y, Li Z, Zhen Y, Wang B, Xu Z. Robotic versus procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of
laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis. World J Surg 168,248 cases. Surg Endosc 2016 Mar;30(3):925-933.
Oncol 2014 Aug;12:274. 23. Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH.
8. Baek SJ, Kim SH, Cho JS, Shin JW, Kim J. Robotic versus Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colecto-
conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a cost mies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 2002 Dec;45(12):
analysis from a single institute in Korea. World J Surg 2012 1689-1694.
Nov;36(11):2722-2729. 24. Sandoval Salinas C, González Rangel AL, Cataño Cataño JG,
9. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A com- Fuentes Pachón JC, Castillo Londoño JS. Efficacy of robotic-
parison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for assisted prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer: a sys-
colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004 May;350(20):2050-2059. tematic review of clinical trials. Adv Urol 2013;2013:105651.
64