Advertisement

Robotic Low Anterior Resection with Double-Staple Technique

  • Steven J. NurkinEmail author
  • Julia H. Terhune
  • Sumana Narayanan
Chapter

Abstract

The adoption of minimally invasive techniques in oncologic surgery has been slower than many other general surgery procedures, as surgeons have awaited for assurances that oncologic outcomes are equivalent between minimally invasive and open approaches. At our institution we routinely perform robotic low anterior resections (LAR) and have observed distinct advantages with this technique, despite an initial steep learning curve.

Keywords

Robotic low anterior resection Double-staple technique LAR Rectal surgery Pelvic dissection TME 

Supplementary material

Video 23.1

Robotic low anterior resection with double-staple technique (MP4 557032 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Heald RJ, Ryall RDH. Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1986;1:1479–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonjer HJ, Deijin CL, Haglind E, et al. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. NEJM. 2015;372:1324–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Simes J, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1456–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fleshman J, Branda M, Nelson H, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1346–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sammour T, Malakorn S, Chang GJ, et al. Oncologic outcomes after robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer: analysis of a prospective database. Ann Surg. 2016;267:521–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rodel C, Graeven U, Liersch T, et al. Oxaliplatin added to fluorouracil-based preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy of locally advanced rectal cancer (the German CAO/ARO/AIO-04 study): final results of the multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:979–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Probst CP, Becerra AZ, Fleming FJ, et al. Extended intervals after neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: the key to improved tumor response and potential organ preservation. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:430–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taylor FG, Quirke R, Brown G, et al. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease-free survival and local recurrence: 5-year follow-up results of the MERCURY study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim JS, Cho SY, Kim NK, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:694–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braunschmid T, Hartig N, Herbst F, et al. Influence of multiple stapler firings used for rectal division on colorectal anastomotic leak rate. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:5318–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Nurkin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Julia H. Terhune
    • 1
  • Sumana Narayanan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer CenterBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations