• Deniz Atasoy, Erman Aytac, Volkan Ozben, Onur Bayraktar, Ilknur Erenler Bayraktar, Afag Aghayeva, Bilgi Baca, Ismail Hamzaoglu, and Tayfun Karahasanoglu.
• Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Acibadem University , Istanbul, Turkey .
• J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018 May 1; 28 (5): 501-505.

BackgroundThis study was designed to compare the operative and short-term postoperative outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic staplers in patients undergoing rectal surgery for cancer.Materials And MethodsBetween December 2014 and April 2017, patients consecutively undergoing robotic rectal surgery for cancer were included in this study. Patients were grouped into two according to the type of staplers for rectal transection [Robotic (45-mm) versus Laparoscopic (60-mm) linear staplers]. Patient demographics, pathologic data, perioperative outcomes, and short-term results were compared.ResultsOne hundred seven patients met our inclusion criteria. The number of male patients were higher in robotic stapler group than in the laparoscopic stapler group (55% versus 76%, P = .03). Age (59 versus 63 years, P = .40), body mass index (27 versus 27 kg/m2, P = .60), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2 versus 2, P = .20), number of prior abdominal operations (31% versus 20%, P = .22) and number of patients having neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (34% versus 36%, P = .86) were comparable between the groups. The numbers of cartridges used were similar regardless of the type of staplers (2 versus 2, P = .58). The overall complication was similar between the groups (24% versus 31%, P = .32). Leak rates were 5% (n = 2) and 3% (n = 2) in the robotic and laparoscopic stapler groups, respectively (p = 1). There was no mortality.ConclusionsThis is the first study evaluating the role of robotic stapler specifically for rectal transection in comparative manner. The use of robotic stapler for rectal transection was safe and feasible in rectal surgery for cancer.

24 keywords...

hide…