Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Right Hemicolectomy and Ileocecectomy: Robotic Intracorporeal Anastomosis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advanced Techniques in Minimally Invasive and Robotic Colorectal Surgery

  • 1642 Accesses

Abstract

Right colectomy may be most beneficial when utilizing an intracorporeal anastomosis. The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for neoplastic and nonneoplastic disease are well established. Unfortunately, some benefits are lessened when extracorporeal reconstruction is performed. The use of an incision to accommodate any extracorporeal technique is associated with increased risks of such undesirable outcomes: hernia, superficial wound infection, pain, and suboptimal cosmesis. Also, there are added technical difficulties when performing extracorporeal anastomosis in the obese. The techniques elucidated in this chapter address such issues by utilizing the robotic platform to perform intracorporeal ileocolostomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lacy AM, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9325):2224–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Abstracted from: Nelson H, Sargent D, Wieand HS, et al.; for the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted colectomy is as safe and effective as open colectomy in people with colon cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004;30(8):707–9. Web 21 Jun 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Guillou PJ, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1718–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Delaney CP, et al. Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann Surg. 2008;247(5):819–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zimmern A, et al. Robotic colon and rectal surgery: a series of 131 cases. World J Surg. 2010;34(8):1954–8. Web. 21 June 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Marecik SJ, et al. Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the potential advantage of robotic assistance. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(12):1611–7. Web. 21 June 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Baik SH, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16.6(6):1480–7. Web. 21 June 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pigazzi A, et al. Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1614–20. Web. 21 June 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Antoniou SA. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Witkiewicz W, et al. Robot-assisted right colectomy: surgical technique and review of the literature. Wideochir Inne Tech Malo Inwazyjne. 2013;8(3): 253–7. Web. 21 Jun 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  11. DeSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ, et al. Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(7):1000–6. Web. 21 June 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jamali FR, et al. Evaluating the degree of difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg (Chicago, Ill : 1960). 2008;143(8):762–7; discussion 768.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Trastulli S, et al. Robotic right colectomy for cancer with intracorporeal anastomosis: short-term outcomes from a single institution. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28(6):807–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cadiere GB, et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg. 2001;25(11):1467–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cirocchi R, et al. Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy E systematic review and. Surg Oncol. 2013;22(1):1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stein SA, Bergamaschi R. Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17 Suppl 1:S35–9. Web. 21 June 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Trastulli S, et al. Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Color Dis : Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel. 2012;14(4):e134–56. Web. 22 June 2014.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Morpurgo E, et al. Robotic-assisted intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a case control study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(5):414–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Park SY, et al. Robot-assisted right colectomy with lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal anastomosis for colon cancer: technical considerations. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22(5):e271–6. Web. 21 Jun 2014

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Rochester General Hospital, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY, USA

    Stephen M. Rauh MD & Steven J. Ognibene MD, FACS, FASCRS

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Margaret De Guzman MD

Authors
  1. Stephen M. Rauh MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margaret De Guzman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven J. Ognibene MD, FACS, FASCRS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen M. Rauh MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

    Ovunc Bardakcioglu

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Robotic-assisted antiperistaltic anastomosis (MP4 268653 kb)

Robotic isoperistaltic anastomosis (MP4 298272 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rauh, S.M., De Guzman, M., Ognibene, S.J. (2015). Right Hemicolectomy and Ileocecectomy: Robotic Intracorporeal Anastomosis. In: Bardakcioglu, O. (eds) Advanced Techniques in Minimally Invasive and Robotic Colorectal Surgery. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7531-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7531-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-7530-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7531-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation