Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Coloanal Anastomosis With And Without Intersphincteric Resection | 3319
ISSN: 2161-069X

Journal of Gastrointestinal & Digestive System
Open Access

Like us on:

Our Group organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations
700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)

Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with and without intersphincteric resection

2nd International Conference on Gastroenterology & Urology

Sami F. AL-Asari

ScientificTracks Abstracts: J Gastrointest Dig Syst

DOI: 10.4172/2161-069X.S1.012

Aim: Our aim of this study is to compare the short and long- term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ultra low anterior resection and coloanal anastomosis (with or without intersphincteric resection). Methods & Materials: Between January 2007 and December 2010, a retrospective chart review of all patients diagnosed with low rectal cancer that underwent curative ultra low anterior resection and coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection using either robotic or laparoscopic approach. Inclusion criteria were as follows: mid or low rectal cancer, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, laparoscopic and robotic approach. Exclusion criteria: Open approach, tumors invading the levator ani or external sphincter, T4 cancers invading the prostate and vagina that did not respond to neoadjuvant treatment. Morbidity was stratified by Accordion severity grading system of surgical complications. Results: A total of 84 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic-assisted ultra low anterior resection and coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection have been studied. 47 of them had robotic and 37 laparoscopic procedure. Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups. The median follow-up was 31.5 months. There was no perioperative mortality. The complication rates were similar in robotic and laparoscopic groups (19.1% vs. 27.0%, P: 0.439). However, the conversion rate was 2.1% in the robotic group and 16.2% in the laparoscopic group (P:0.02). Robotic group had shorter hospital stay than laparoscopic one (9 days vs. 11 days, P:0.011). The local recurrence rates were similar in both groups (Robotic, 6.4% vs. Laparoscopic, 5.4%; P:1.00). The 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 80.6% in the robotic group and 81.2% in the laparoscopic group (P:0.914) and the 3-year overall survival was 86.5% in the robotic group and 90.7% in the laparoscopic one (P:0.404). Conclusion: Robotic ultra low anterior resection and coloanal anastomosis with or without ISR is safe and feasible surgical approach with similar oncological outcomes, shorter hospital stay and low conversion rate than laparoscopic approach. However, further prospective and case-control cohort studies with longer follow-up are required.