Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Left Colectomy Reconstructed by Intracorporeal Overlap Anastomosis for Left-sided Colon Cancer: A Single-center Report from Japan.

Cancer diagnosis & prognosis Pub Date : 2024-11-03 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.21873/cdp.10390
Toshikatsu Nitta, Masatsugu Ishii, Masataka Taki, Ryutaro Kubo, Norihiro Hosokawa, Takashi Ishibashi
{"title":"Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Left Colectomy Reconstructed by Intracorporeal Overlap Anastomosis for Left-sided Colon Cancer: A Single-center Report from Japan.","authors":"Toshikatsu Nitta, Masatsugu Ishii, Masataka Taki, Ryutaro Kubo, Norihiro Hosokawa, Takashi Ishibashi","doi":"10.21873/cdp.10390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>Surgery for colon cancer requires covering a wide area and performing both tumor resection and precise lymph node dissection. Robotic left-sided colectomy (RLC) has not been thoroughly established due to the rarity of descending colon cancer. Therefore, we investigated 19 patients who underwent RLC for left-sided colon cancer.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Between January 2023 and July 2024, a total of 19 consecutive patients underwent robotic radical left colectomy, which included mobilization of the splenic flexure. We compared the intra- and postoperative factors between left-sided colectomy with and without stent placement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total operative time (p=0.002), console time (p=0.001), and lymph node harvest time (p=0.001) were significantly different. The total operative time with stent placement was longer than that without stent placement (421.6 vs. 302.0, p<0.01). Console time with stent placement was longer than that without stent placement (315.0 vs. 202.0, p<0.01). More lymph nodes were harvested with stent placement than without (33.1 vs. 11.0, p<0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We did not experience any conversions to open surgery, and two Grade II complications were observed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Both total operative and console times were longer in cases with stent placement compared to those without. Nevertheless, we safely performed robotic left colectomy, regardless of whether the left-sided colon cancer was treated with stent placement, even in cases where the anastomosis overlapped naturally. Our postoperative outcomes showed no anastomosis-related complications. Therefore, RLC reconstruction using an intracorporeal overlap anastomosis is feasible for left-sided colon cancer, both in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72510,"journal":{"name":"Cancer diagnosis & prognosis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534041/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer diagnosis & prognosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21873/cdp.10390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aim: Surgery for colon cancer requires covering a wide area and performing both tumor resection and precise lymph node dissection. Robotic left-sided colectomy (RLC) has not been thoroughly established due to the rarity of descending colon cancer. Therefore, we investigated 19 patients who underwent RLC for left-sided colon cancer.

Patients and methods: Between January 2023 and July 2024, a total of 19 consecutive patients underwent robotic radical left colectomy, which included mobilization of the splenic flexure. We compared the intra- and postoperative factors between left-sided colectomy with and without stent placement.

Results: Total operative time (p=0.002), console time (p=0.001), and lymph node harvest time (p=0.001) were significantly different. The total operative time with stent placement was longer than that without stent placement (421.6 vs. 302.0, p<0.01). Console time with stent placement was longer than that without stent placement (315.0 vs. 202.0, p<0.01). More lymph nodes were harvested with stent placement than without (33.1 vs. 11.0, p<0.01).

Conclusion: We did not experience any conversions to open surgery, and two Grade II complications were observed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Both total operative and console times were longer in cases with stent placement compared to those without. Nevertheless, we safely performed robotic left colectomy, regardless of whether the left-sided colon cancer was treated with stent placement, even in cases where the anastomosis overlapped naturally. Our postoperative outcomes showed no anastomosis-related complications. Therefore, RLC reconstruction using an intracorporeal overlap anastomosis is feasible for left-sided colon cancer, both in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

体腔内重叠吻合术重建机器人左结肠切除术治疗左侧结肠癌的短期疗效:日本单中心报告
背景/目的:结肠癌手术需要覆盖广泛的区域,并同时进行肿瘤切除和精确的淋巴结清扫。由于降结肠癌的罕见性,机器人左侧结肠切除术(RLC)尚未被彻底确立。因此,我们调查了19例因左侧结肠癌接受机器人左侧结肠切除术的患者:在 2023 年 1 月至 2024 年 7 月期间,共有 19 例连续患者接受了机器人左侧结肠癌根治术,其中包括脾曲移动术。我们比较了放置和未放置支架的左侧结肠切除术的术中和术后因素:结果:手术总时间(P=0.002)、控制台时间(P=0.001)和淋巴结采集时间(P=0.001)均有显著差异。放置支架的总手术时间长于未放置支架的总手术时间(421.6 对 302.0,P=0.002):根据克拉维恩-丁多(Clavien-Dindo)的分类,我们没有发现任何转为开放手术的情况,并观察到两例二级并发症。与未放置支架的病例相比,放置支架的病例总手术时间和控制台时间都更长。不过,无论左侧结肠癌是否采用支架置入术,我们都能安全地进行机器人左结肠切除术,即使吻合口自然重叠的病例也是如此。我们的术后结果显示没有出现与吻合相关的并发症。因此,无论从术中还是术后效果来看,使用体腔内重叠吻合器重建左侧结肠癌都是可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信