alexa Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection
Anesthesiology

Anesthesiology

Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research

Author(s): Jimnez Rodrguez RM, Daz Pavn JM, de La Portilla de Juan F, Prendes Sillero E, Hisnard Cadet Dussort JM

Abstract Share this page

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery is playing an increasingly important role in the last few years in the treatment of colorectal oncological disease. However, there are still no studies that objectively demonstrate the advantages of this type of surgery. We present a prospective randomised study in order to compare the short-term results between colorectal robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 56 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January 2008 and January 2009, were randomised and assigned to the robotic or laparoscopic group. Age, body mass index, tumour location, conversions in each group, complications during and after surgery, and histological characteristics of the specimens obtained, were all compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between age (P=.055), body mass index (P=.12), or tumour location (P=.91). Only one patient in the robotic group required a transfusion and none in the laparoscopic group. The percentage of conversions was the same in both groups, however, the preparation times and operating times were significantly longer in patients intervened using the robotic device (P=.0001 and P=.017, respectively). There were no differences as regards the rate of complications or in the percentage of re-interventions (14.2% and 7.1%). The mean hospital stay of the patients was 9.3 (8.1) days in the robotic group and 9.2 (6.8) days in the laparoscopic (P=.79). The distal resection margin was greater in the specimen obtained using robotic surgery (P =.003) as well as the number of lymph nodes obtained in the specimen (P =.23). CONCLUSION: Robotic colorectal was performed safely and effectively, and with similar clinical results. International Trial Number for this study is: ISRCTN60866560.

This article was published in Cir Esp. and referenced in Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research

Relevant Expert PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords