SpringerLink
Log in

Selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection: a comparative study of the robotic versus laparoscopic approach

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a challenging procedure due to its technical difficulty and higher incidence of surgical morbidity. We compared short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic LPND in patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

Between May 2006 and December 2014, prospectively collected data from consecutive patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with LPND were retrospectively compared. Patients’ demographics, perioperative outcomes, functional results, and initial oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Fifty and 35 patients underwent robotic or laparoscopic TME with LPND, respectively. Bilateral LPND was performed in 10 patients (20%) in the robotic group and 6 (17.1%) in the laparoscopic group. For unilateral pelvic dissection, the mean operative time was not significantly different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 41.0 ± 15.8 min vs. 35.3 ± 13.4 min; P = 0.146), but the EBL was significantly lower in the robotic group (34.6 ± 21.9 mL vs. 50.6 ± 23.8 mL; P = 0.002). Two patients (4.0%) in the robotic group and 7 (20.0%) in the laparoscopic group underwent Foley catheter reinsertion for urinary retention postoperatively (P = 0.029). The mean number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPNs) was 6.6 (range 0–25) in the robotic group and 6.4 (range 1–14) in the laparoscopic group. Pathologic LPN metastatic rate was not different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 28.0 vs. 41.2%; P = 0.243). During the median follow-up of 26.3 months, overall recurrence rate was not different between groups (robotic vs. laparoscopic group, 30.0 vs. 31.2%; P = 0.850). Three patients (6.0%) in the robotic group and 4 (11.4%) in the laparoscopic group developed local recurrence (P = 0.653).

Conclusions

Robotic TME with LPND is safe and feasible with favorable short-term surgical outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sauer I, Bacon HE (1951) Influence of lateral spread of cancer of the rectum on radicability of operation and prognosis. Am J Surg 81:111–120

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1:1479–1482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W et al (2004) Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351:1731–1740

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G et al (2006) Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 355:1114–1123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Garcia-Aguilar J, Cromwell JW, Marra C et al (2001) Treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1743–1748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim TH, Jeong SY, Choi DH et al (2008) Lateral lymph node metastasis is a major cause of locoregional recurrence in rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and curative resection. Ann Surg Oncol 15:729–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Akiyoshi T, Ueno M, Matsueda K et al (2014) Selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with advanced low rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy based on pretreatment imaging. Ann Surg Oncol 21:189–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH et al (2012) Laparoscopic extended lateral pelvic node dissection following total mesorectal excision for advanced rectal cancer: initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc 25:3322–3329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liang JT (2011) Technical feasibility of laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for patients with low rectal cancer after concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 18:153–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Konishi T, Kuroyanagi H, Oya M et al (2011) Multimedia article. Lateral lymph node dissection with preoperative chemoradiation for locally advanced lower rectal cancer through a laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 25:2358–2359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hellan M, Anderson C, Ellenhorn JD et al (2007) Short-term outcomes after robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 14:3168–3173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH et al (2010) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 17:3195–3202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kang J, Yoon KJ, Min BS et al (2013) The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis of a 3-arm comparison—open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Ann Surg 257:95–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kobayashi H, Mochizuki H, Kato T et al (2009) Outcomes of surgery alone for lower rectal cancer with and without pelvic sidewall dissection. Dis Colon Rectum 52:567–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Akiyoshi T, Watanabe T, Ueno M (2012) Is lateral pelvic lymph node dissection no longer necessary for low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy and TME to reduce local recurrence? J Gastrointest Surg 16:2341–2342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kojima M, Naya Y, Inoue W et al (1997) The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia as a function of age, volume and ultrasonic appearance of the prostate. J Urol 157:2160–2165

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park JA, Choi GS, Park JS et al (2012) Initial clinical experience with robotic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28:265–270

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Georgiou P, Tan E, Gouvas N et al (2009) Extended lymphadenectomy versus conventional surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 10:1053–1062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kusters M, Beets GL, van de Velde CJ et al (2009) A comparison between the treatment of low rectal cancer in Japan and the Netherlands, focusing on the patterns of local recurrence. Ann Surg 249:229–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Syk E, Torkzad MR, Blomqvist L et al (2006) Radiological findings do not support lateral residual tumour as a major cause of local recurrence of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 93:113–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ueno H, Mochizuki H, Hashiguchi Y et al (2007) Potential prognostic benefit of lateral pelvic node dissection for rectal cancer located below the peritoneal reflection. Ann Surg 245:80–87

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Moriya Y, Sugihara K, Akasu T et al (1997) Importance of extended lymphadenectomy with lateral node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer. World J Surg 21:728–732

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lim SB, Yu CS, Kim CW et al (2013) Clinical implication of additional selective lateral lymph node excision in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:1667–1674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Watanabe T, Tsurita G, Muto T et al (2002) Extended lymphadenectomy and preoperative radiotherapy for lower rectal cancers. Surgery 132:27–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nagawa H, Muto T, Sunouchi K et al (2001) Randomized, controlled trial of lateral node dissection vs. nerve-preserving resection in patients with rectal cancer after preoperative radiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1274–1280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shingo N, Masayuki O, Yosuke S et al (2010) Feasibility of a lateral region sentinel node biopsy of lower rectal cancer guided in indocyanine green using a near-infrared camera system. Ann Surg Oncol 17:144–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kyo K, Sameshima S, Takahashi M et al (2006) Impact of autonomic nerve preservation and lateral node dissection on male urogenital function after total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer. World J Surg 30:1014–1019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Moriya Y (2006) Function preservation in rectal cancer surgery. Int J Clin Oncol 11:339–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fujita S, Akasu T, Mizusawa J et al (2012) Postoperative morbidity and mortality after mesorectal excision with and without lateral lymph node dissection for clinical stage II or stage III lower rectal cancer (JCOG0212): results from a multicentre, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 13:616–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (2016R1C1B2016002).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colorectal Cancer Center, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, 807 Hogukro, Buk-gu, Daegu, 702-210, South Korea

    Hye ** Kim, Gyu-Seog Choi, Jun Seok Park, Soo Yeun Park, Hee Jae Lee, In Taek Woo & In Kyu Park

Authors
  1. Hye ** Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gyu-Seog Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jun Seok Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Soo Yeun Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hee Jae Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. In Taek Woo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. In Kyu Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HJK—analysis and writing of the manuscript. G-SC—responsibility to correspondence and study proposal. JSP, SYP, HJL, ITW, and IKP—enrollment of patients, data collection, and study proposal.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gyu-Seog Choi.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Dr. Hye ** Kim, Gyu-Seog Choi, Jun Seok Park, Soo Yeun Park, Hee Jae Lee, In Taek Woo, and In Kyu Park have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 207166 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, H.J., Choi, GS., Park, J.S. et al. Selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection: a comparative study of the robotic versus laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 32, 2466–2473 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5948-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5948-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation