Gallbladder cancer(GBC)is a rare disease with a poor prognosis.Simple cholecystectomy may be an adequate treatment only for very early disease(Tis,T1a),whereas reoperation is recommended for more advanced disease(T1b ...Gallbladder cancer(GBC)is a rare disease with a poor prognosis.Simple cholecystectomy may be an adequate treatment only for very early disease(Tis,T1a),whereas reoperation is recommended for more advanced disease(T1b and T2).Radical cholecystectomy should have two fundamental objectives:To radically resect the liver parenchyma and to achieve adequate clearance of the lymph nodes.However,recent studies have shown that compared with lymph node dissection alone,liver resection does not improve survival outcomes.The oncological roles of lymphadenectomy and liver resection is distinct.Therefore,for patients with incidental GBC without liver invasion,hepatic resection is not always mandatory.展开更多
AIM: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patien...AIM: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014 (robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage I-III disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.RESULTS: Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME (L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME (R-TME) (P < 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients (8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P < 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group (18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P < 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients (1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P < 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.CONCLUSION: Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.展开更多
The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced le...The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition threedimensional vision, it translates the surgeon's hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors' centre.展开更多
文摘Gallbladder cancer(GBC)is a rare disease with a poor prognosis.Simple cholecystectomy may be an adequate treatment only for very early disease(Tis,T1a),whereas reoperation is recommended for more advanced disease(T1b and T2).Radical cholecystectomy should have two fundamental objectives:To radically resect the liver parenchyma and to achieve adequate clearance of the lymph nodes.However,recent studies have shown that compared with lymph node dissection alone,liver resection does not improve survival outcomes.The oncological roles of lymphadenectomy and liver resection is distinct.Therefore,for patients with incidental GBC without liver invasion,hepatic resection is not always mandatory.
文摘AIM: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014 (robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage I-III disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.RESULTS: Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME (L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME (R-TME) (P < 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients (8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P < 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group (18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P < 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients (1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P < 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.CONCLUSION: Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.
文摘The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition threedimensional vision, it translates the surgeon's hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors' centre.
