Article Data

  • Views 618
  • Dowloads 110

Original Research

Open Access

Robotic-assisted colorectal procedures in a gynecologic oncology setting

  • G.A. Feuer1,*,
  • C.S. Abied2
  • M.A. Glasgow1
  • S.S. Salmieri1
  • N.A. Lakhi2

1Atlanta Gynecologic Oncology, Northside Hospital, Atlanta, GA

2Richmond University Medical Center, Staten Island, New York and New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY (USA)

DOI: 10.12892/ejgo4674.2018 Vol.39,Issue 5,October 2018 pp.718-723

Published: 10 October 2018

*Corresponding Author(s): G.A. Feuer E-mail: gfeuer@aol.com

Abstract

Purpose: Despite potential benefits, gynecologic oncology has not fully embraced use of the robot for concomitant colorectal procedures. The authors describe the robotic technique and outcomes of colorectal surgeries from an experienced gynecologic oncologist’s practice. Materials and Methods: A review of robotic-assisted gynecologic surgeries between 2011 and 2016 was undertaken to identify patients with colorectal procedures and findings. Results: Sixteen patients had robotic-assisted colorectal procedures, including end-sigmoid colostomy (n=8), colon resection with anastomosis (n=5), low anterior resection with end-to-end anastomosis (n=3), and cecectomy (n=1). Median operative time was 130 minutes, blood loss 50 ml, and length-of-stay three days. There were no intra-operative complications or conversions. One postoperative ileus resolved with supportive care and one intermittent partial bowel obstruction not requiring hospitalization occurred. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted colorectal procedures by a gynecologic oncologist can be done safely and in reasonable operative time. Gynecologic oncology calls for overlapping training in multiple domains with a minimally invasive approach.

Keywords

Robotic surgery; Gynecologic oncology; Colorectal surgery; Minimally invasive surgery; Surgical technique.

Cite and Share

G.A. Feuer,C.S. Abied,M.A. Glasgow,S.S. Salmieri,N.A. Lakhi. Robotic-assisted colorectal procedures in a gynecologic oncology setting. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2018. 39(5);718-723.

References

[1] Boronow R.C.: “About SGO: History of SGO”. Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, April 2003. Aviulable at: http://web.archive.org/web/ 20070110205113/ http://sgo.org/about/history.cfm

[2] Childers J.M., Hatch K., Surwit E.A.: “The role of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in the management of cervical carcinoma”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1992, 47, 38.

[3] Childers J.M., Brzechffa P.R., Hatch K.D., Surwit E.A.: “Laparoscopically assisted surgical staging (LASS) of endometrial cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1993, 51, 33.

[4] Childers J.M., Lang J., Surwit E.A., Hatch K.D.: (1995) “Laparoscopic surgical staging of ovarian cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1995, 59, 25.

[5] Childers J.M.: “The virtues and pitfalls of minimally invasive surgery for gynecological malignancies: an update.“ Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol., 1999, 11, 51.

[6] Jackson K.S., Das N., Naik R., Lopes A.D., Godfrey K.A., Hatem M.H., Monaghan J.M.: “Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy vs. radical abdominal hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a match controlled study”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2004, 95, 655.

[7] Ghezzi F., Cromi A., Uccella S., Bergamini V., Tomera S., Franchi M., Bolis P.: “Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the surgical management of apparent early stage ovarian cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2007, 105, 409.

[8] Walker J.L., Piedmonte M.R., Spirtos N.M., Eisenkop S.M., Schlaerth J.B., Mannel R.S., et al.: “Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2”. J. Clin. Oncol., 2009, 27, 5331.

[9] Ghezzi F., Cromi A., Serati M., Uccella S., Formenti G., Bogani G., Vanoli P.: “Radiation-induced bowel complications: laparoscopic versus open staging of gynecologic malignancy”. Ann. Surg. Oncol., 2011, 18, 782.

[10] Ghezzi F., Cromi A., Ditto A., Vizza E., Malzoni M., Raspagliesi F., et al.: “Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy for stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a multi-institutional cohort study”. Ann. Surg. Oncol., 2013, 20, 2007.

[11] Favero G., Anton C., Le X., Silva E., Silva A., Dogan N.U., et al.: “Oncologic safety of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of type II endometrial cancer”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer., 2016, 26, 1673.

[12] Blackmore A.E., Wong M.T., Tang C.L.: “Evolution of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery: an evidence-based review. World J. Gastroenterol., 2014, 20, 4926.

[13] “Robotically-Assisted Surgical Devices” Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/UCM454811.pdf).

[14] Lim P.C.: “Robotic assisted total pelvic exenteration: a case report”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2009, 115, 310.

[15] Chen S.H., Li Z.A., Huang R., Xue H.Q.: “Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer staging: a meta-analysis”. Taiwan J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2016, 55, 488.

[16] Xie W., Cao D., Yang J., Shen K., Zhao L.: “Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol., 2016, 142, 2173.

[17] Davis M.A., Adams S., Eun D., Lee D., Randall T.C.: “Robotic-assisted laparoscopic exenteration in recurrent cervical cancer: robotics improved the surgical experience for 2 women with recurrent cervical cancer”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2010, 202, 663.e1.

[18] Iavazzo C., Gkegkes I.D.: “Robotic technology for pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer”. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet., 2014, 125, 15.

[19] Vasilescu C., Tudor S., Popa M., Aldea B., Gluck G.: “Entirely robotic total pelvic exenteration”. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan. Tech., 2011, 21, e200.

[20] Farghaly S.A.: “Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anterior pelvic exenteration in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: Farghaly’s technique”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2010, 31, 361.

[21] Nanayakkara P.R., Ahmed S.A., Oudit D., O’Dwyer S.T., Selvasekar C.R.: “Robotic assisted minimally invasive pelvic exenteration in advanced rectal cancer: review and case report”. J. Robot. Surg., 2014, 8, 173.

[22] Ercoli A., Bassi E., Ferrari S., Surico D., Fagotti A., Fanfani F., et al.: “Robotic-assisted conservative excision of retrocervical-rectal deep infiltrating endometriosis: a case series”. Minim. Invasive Gynecol., 2017, 24, 863.

[23] Shiomi A., Kinugasa Y., Yamaguchi T., Kagawa H., Yamakawa Y.: “Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for lower rectal cancer: the impact of visceral obesity on surgical outcomes”. Int. J. Colorectal Dis., 2016, 31, 1701.

[24] Sun Y., Xu H., Li Z., Han J., Song W., Wang J., Xu Z.: “Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a metaanalysis”. World J. Surg. Oncol., 2016, 14, 61.

[25] Xu H., Li J., Sun Y., Li Z., Zhen Y., Wang B., Xu Z.: “Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis”. World J. Surg. Oncol., 2014, 12, 274.

[26] Liao G., Zhao Z., Lin S., Li R., Yuan Y., Du S.: “Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials”. World J. Surg. Oncol., 2014, 12, 122.

[27] Farghaly S.A.: “Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: Farghaly’s technique”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2013, 34, 205.

[28] de’ Angelis N., Lizzi V., Azoulay D., Brunetti F.: “Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: analysis of the initial simultaneous learning curve of a surgical fellow”. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A, 2016, 26, 882.

[29] Melich G., Hong Y.K., Kim J., Hur H., Baik S.H., Kim N.K., et al.: “Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotics provides acceptable perioperative outcomes and shows robotics to have a faster learning curve and to be overall faster in rectal cancer surgery: analysis of novice MIS surgeon learning curves”. Surg. Endosc., 2015, 29, 558.

[30] Magrina J.F., Zanagnolo V., Noble B.N., Kho R.M., Magtibay P.: “Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2011, 21, 100.

[31] Magrina J.F., Cetta R.L., Chang Y.H., Guevara G., Magtibay P.M.: “Analysis of secondary cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer by robotics, laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol. Oncol., 2013, 129, 336.

[32] Feuer G.A., Lakhi N., Barker J., Salmieri S., Burrell M.: “Perioperative and clinical outcomes in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer using a robotic or abdominal approach”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2013, 131, 520.

[33] Escobar P.F., Levinson K.L., Magrina J., Martino M.A., Barakat R.R., Fader A.N., Leitao M.M. “Feasibility and preoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery in the management of recurrent ovarian cancer: a multi-institutional study”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2014, 134, 253.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top