Annals of Coloproctology

Display

Sort by :

Original Articles

Colorectal cancer

Prognostic significance of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) change during immediate postoperative periods in patients with stage I–III colorectal cancer: Wooram Choi, Yongjung Park, Jeonghyun Kang; Ann Coloproctol. 2025;41(5):400-408. Published online October 23, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2025.00528.0075

3,174 View
71 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
Although carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) may exhibit low sensitivity in tumor screening, its prognostic significance has been highlighted. This study assessed the significance of preoperative CA19-9 and early postoperative CA19-9 levels in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).
Methods
Patients diagnosed with stage I–III CRC between January 2004 and April 2014 were included. Preoperative CA19-9 was assessed within 2 months of operation, whereas postoperative CA19-9 was measured 4 to 7 days after operation. The optimal cutoff values for preoperative and postoperative CA19-9 were established to maximize the differences in overall survival. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the CA19-9 change (CA19-9 trend): group 1, low preoperative CA19-9; group 2, high preoperative and low postoperative CA19-9; and group 3, high preoperative and postoperative CA19-9. The discriminatory powers of all variables were compared using the concordance index.
Results
A total of 816 patients were included. The determined cutoff values for preoperative and postoperative CA19-9 were 18.9 and 21.4 U/mL, respectively. Subgroup dichotomization revealed associations of preoperative CA19-9, postoperative CA19-9, and CA19-9 trend with overall survival in univariable analysis. The CA19-9 trend emerged as an independent prognostic factor in the multivariable analysis (group 1 vs. group 2: hazard ratio, 1.682 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.043–2.710], P=0.032; group 1 vs. group 3: hazard ratio, 2.882 [95% CI, 1.899–4.371], P<0.001). The concordance index value of the CA19-9 trend (0.636; 95% CI, 0.509–0.682) surpassed those of preoperative and postoperative CA19-9.
Conclusion
The amalgamation of preoperative and postoperative CA19-9 levels demonstrated enhanced prognostic stratification, allowing for a more detailed classification of patients with nonmetastatic CRC.

Malignant disease,Colorectal cancer,Prognosis,Epidemiology & etiology

Clinicopathologic characteristics and survival of patients with double primary malignancies: breast and colorectal cancer: Hyundo Lee, Hae Won Lee, Eun Jung Park, Jeonghyun Kang, Seung Hyuk Baik; Ann Coloproctol. 2022;38(3):197-206. Published online October 18, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2021.00640.0091

5,119 View
170 Download
3 Web of Science
2 Citations

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathologic features and survival in patients with both breast cancer (BrC) and colorectal cancer (CRC).
Methods
Between 1996 and 2019, patients who were diagnosed with both BrC and CRC were evaluated retrospectively. Patients with distant metastasis, palliative resection, and previous cancer histories except for BrCs or CRCs were excluded. Altogether, 105 patients were divided into the B=C group (n=21), B-first group (n=40), and C-first group (n=44) according to the definition of synchronous and metachronous cancers. The clinicopathologic features and overall survival were evaluated.
Results
TNM stages and histologic types were comparable among the 3 groups (P=0.434). The interval of diagnosis was 67.1±40.4 and 59.3±47.2 months in the B- and C-first groups, respectively. The incidence of adjuvant chemotherapy in the B-first group was 57.5%, which was higher than the B=C and C-first groups (P<0.001). The estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and HER-2 molecular markers were not significantly different among the groups. The overall survival of the B-first group showed lower survival rates than the C-first group (P=0.039). In the logistic regression, HER-2 status (hazard ratio [HR], 11.9; P=0.032) and lymph node metastasis of CRC (HR, 5.8; P=0.036) were prognostic factors affecting overall survival.
Conclusion
B-first group had poorer survival outcomes than the C-first group in patients with the metachronous BrC and CRC. HER2 positivity and CRC lymph node metastasis may be prognostic factors that affect overall survival in these patients. The findings support that a colorectal cancer screening program should be included during BrC surveillance.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Synchronous or metachronous breast and colorectal cancers in younger-than-average-age patients: a case series
Jordyn Silverstein, Francis Wright, Dalila Stanfield, Amy Jo Chien, Jasmine M Wong, John W Park, Amie Blanco, Katherine Van Loon, Chloe E Atreya
The Oncologist.2024; 29(9): e1159. CrossRef
Synchronous Breast and Colorectal Malignant Tumors—A Systematic Review
Cristian Iorga, Cristina Raluca Iorga, Alexandru Grigorescu, Iustinian Bengulescu, Traian Constantin, Victor Strambu
Life.2024; 14(8): 1008. CrossRef

Case Report

Abdominal Sarcoidosis Mimicking Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Won Seok Roh, Seungho Lee, Ji Hyun Park, Jeonghyun Kang; Ann Coloproctol. 2018;34(2):101-105. Published online April 30, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2018.01.29

8,387 View
131 Download
5 Web of Science
7 Citations

Abstract PDF

We present a patient diagnosed with skin sarcoidosis, breast cancer, pulmonary tuberculosis, and peritoneal sarcoidosis with a past history of colorectal cancer. During stage work up for breast cancer, suspicious lesions on peritoneum were observed in imaging studies. Considering our patient’s history and imaging findings, we initially suspected peritoneal carcinomatosis. However, the peritoneal lesion was diagnosed as sarcoidosis in laparoscopic biopsy. This case demonstrates that abdominal sarcoidosis might be considered as a differential diagnosis when there is a lesion suspected of being peritoneal carcinomatosis with nontypical clinical presentations.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Unexpected finding of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis: mind the cocoon
Eva van Boven, Robert R J Coebergh van den Braak, Jan van Laar, Michiel G H Betjes
BMJ Case Reports.2025; 18(1): e264334. CrossRef
Abdominal Sarcoidosis: A Mystery Revisited
Lovenish Bains, Nidhi Paswan, Soukat Ali Khan, Shramana Mandal
Clinical Case Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Spontaneous Remission of Peritoneal Sarcoidosis Diagnosed as a Result of Appendicitis
Chisa SHIBATA, Shunsuke NAKAMURA, Harutaka INOUE, Naoki TERATANI, Shuhei YAMASHITA, Kazuya SHINMURA
Nihon Rinsho Geka Gakkai Zasshi (Journal of Japan Surgical Association).2024; 85(5): 687. CrossRef
Spontaneous remission of peritoneal sarcoidosis
Yosuke Kamiya, Keigo Koda, Mikio Toyoshima, Hitoshi Sumida, Naoko Funai, Takafumi Suda
The Japanese Journal of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Disorders.2023; 43(1_2): 112. CrossRef
Rectal cancer combined with abdominal tuberculosis: A case report
Pei-Gen Liu, Xiang-Fan Chen, Pan-Feng Feng
World Journal of Clinical Cases.2022; 10(31): 11523. CrossRef
Hypercalcemia and Acute Renal Failure Indicating Peritoneal Sarcoidosis
Claude Bachmeyer, Nicolas Belaube, Valeria Loi, Dominique Wendum, Mathieu Gauthé, Jean Philippe Haymann
The American Journal of Medicine.2021; 134(12): e571. CrossRef
Non-neoplastic conditions mimicking peritoneal carcinomatosis at CT imaging
Mohab M Elmohr, Khaled M Elsayes, Perry J Pickhardt
The British Journal of Radiology.2020;[Epub] CrossRef

Original Article

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeries for Patients With Colorectal Cancer Who Have Had a Previous Abdominal Surgery: Soeun Park, Jeonghyun Kang, Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2017;33(5):184-191. Published online October 31, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2017.33.5.184

6,654 View
74 Download
13 Web of Science
14 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

The impact of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) on surgical outcomes from laparoscopic and robot surgeries is inconclusive. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PAS on perioperative outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries.

Methods

From March 2007 to February 2014, a total of 612 and 238 patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgeries, respectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups: those who did not have a PAS (NPAS), those who had a major PAS, and those who had a minor PAS. We further divided the patients so that our final groups for analysis were: patients with NPAS (n = 478), major PAS (n = 19), and minor PAS (n = 115) in the laparoscopy group, and patients with NPAS (n = 202) and minor PAS (n = 36) in the robotic surgery group.

Results

In the laparoscopy group, no differences in the conversion rates between the 3 groups were noted (NPAS = 1.0% vs. major PAS = 0% vs. minor PAS = 1.7%, P = 0.701). In the robotic surgery group, the conversion rate did not differ between the NPAS group and the minor PAS group (1.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.390). Among the groups, neither the operation time, blood loss, days to soft diet, length of hospital stay, nor complication rate were affected by PAS.

Conclusion

PAS did not jeopardize the perioperative outcomes for either laparoscopic or robotic colorectal surgeries. Therefore, PAS should not be regarded as an absolute contraindication for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
S. Gahunia, J. Wyatt, S. G. Powell, S. Mahdi, S. Ahmed, K. Altaf
Techniques in Coloproctology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Impact of previous abdominal surgery on minimally invasive radical resection of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis
Wenjun Liu, Fan He, Defei Chen, Xiuping Zhang
European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2025; 51(10): 110259. CrossRef
Effect of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery
Davide Ferrari, Tommaso Violante, Himani Bhatt, Ibrahim A. Gomaa, Anne-Lise D. D’Angelo, Kellie L. Mathis, David W. Larson
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2024; 28(4): 513. CrossRef
The impact of previous abdominal surgery on colorectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery
Xu-Rui Liu, Bing-Lan Zhang, Dong Peng, Fei Liu, Zi-Wei Li, Chun-Yi Wang
Updates in Surgery.2024; 76(4): 1331. CrossRef
Robot‐assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer after low anterior resection: A case report
Shoutarou Watanabe, Hiroaki Kobayashi, Nao Hiroe, Tomohiro Iwasawa, Michio Kosugi, Masayuki Shimizu, Masaru Ishida
Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
The risk of postoperative complications is higher in stage I-III colorectal cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery: a propensity score matching analysis
Xu-Rui Liu, Fei Liu, Zi-Wei Li, Xiao-Yu Liu, Wei Zhang, Dong Peng
Clinical and Translational Oncology.2023; 25(12): 3471. CrossRef
Pretreatment inflammatory markers predicting treatment outcomes in colorectal cancer
Sanghyun An, Hongjin Shim, Kwangmin Kim, Bora Kim, Hui-Jae Bang, Hyejin Do, Hyang-Rae Lee, Youngwan Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2022; 38(2): 97. CrossRef
Current status of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: A review
Won Beom Jung
International Journal of Gastrointestinal Intervention.2022; 11(2): 56. CrossRef
Conversions related to adhesions in abdominal surgery. Robotic versus laparoscopic approach: A multicentre experience
Marco Milone, Nicola de'Angelis, Nassiba Beghdadi, Francesco Brunetti, Michele Manigrasso, Giuseppe De Simone, Giuseppe Servillo, Sara Vertaldi, Giovanni Domenico De Palma
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center
E. Lorenz, J. Arend, M. Franz, M. Rahimli, A. Perrakis, V. Negrini, A. A. Gumbs, R. S. Croner
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2021; 406(3): 753. CrossRef
Robotic versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgeries
Anil Heroor, Aysha Khan, Kashish Jain, Akshay Patil, Hitesh Rajendra Singhavi
Indian Journal of Colo-Rectal Surgery.2021; 4(1): 12. CrossRef
Safety and feasibility of repeat laparoscopic colorectal resection: a matched case–control study
Alban Zarzavadjian le Bian, Laurent Genser, Christine Denet, Carlotta Ferretti, Anais Laforest, Jean-Marc Ferraz, Candice Tubbax, Philippe Wind, Brice Gayet, David Fuks
Surgical Endoscopy.2020; 34(5): 2120. CrossRef
Impact of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching study
Ching-Wen Huang, Wei-Chih Su, Tsung-Kun Chang, Cheng-Jen Ma, Tzu-Chieh Yin, Hsiang-Lin Tsai, Po-Jung Chen, Yen-Cheng Chen, Ching-Chun Li, Yi-Chien Hsieh, Jaw-Yuan Wang
World Journal of Surgical Oncology.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
An individualized laparoscopic‐assisted approach in a patient with a sigmoid tumour and a giant incisional hernia – a video vignette
C. Clancy, M. Flanagan, M. Bughio, M. G. O'Riordain
Colorectal Disease.2019; 21(8): 972. CrossRef

Case Reports

Multiple Myeloma Mimics Bone Metastasis From a Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Im-Kyung Kim, Jeonghyun Kang, Yu Ri Kim, Tae Joo Jeon, Seung Hyuk Baik, Seung-Kook Sohn; Ann Coloproctol. 2017;33(2):70-73. Published online April 28, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2017.33.2.70

6,267 View
44 Download
1 Citations

Abstract PDF

A presumptive diagnosis of bone metastasis can be easily made when a patient with a history of colorectal cancer develops bone lesions that are seen on follow-up imaging. In this case report, we describe a patient whose multiple bone lesions were wrongly attributed to a recurrence of rectal cancer rather than being identified as multiple myeloma lesions. When clinicians detect new, abnormal, bony lesions in a patient with a previous history of cancer, they should consider diseases such as multiple myeloma in their differential diagnosis.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Capecitabine/fluorouracil/oxaliplatin

Reactions Weekly.2017; 1661(1): 71. CrossRef

Xanthogranulomatous Appendicitis Mimicking Residual Burkitt's Lymphoma After Chemotherapy: Soomin Nam, Jeonghyun Kang, Sung-Eun Choi, Yu Ri Kim, Seung Hyuk Baik, Seung-Kook Sohn; Ann Coloproctol. 2016;32(2):83-86. Published online April 30, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2016.32.2.83

5,162 View
43 Download
5 Web of Science
9 Citations

Abstract PDF

The case of a 23-year-old female treated with aggressive high-dose therapy for Burkitt's lymphoma is reported. A positron emission tomography and computed tomography scan after completion of chemotherapy revealed a residual hypermetabolic lesion in the right pelvic cavity. A pelvic magnetic resonance imaging scan showed circumferential wall thickening at the tip of the appendix. A laparoscopic exploration and appendectomy were performed, and a pathologic examination of the resected appendix revealed xanthogranulomatous appendicitis. This is a rare case of a xanthogranulomatous appendicitis mimicking remnant Burkitt's lymphoma after completion of chemotherapy.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Xanthogranulomatous appendicitis presenting asymptomatically 3 years after surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: A case report
Nobuhisa Tanioka, Michio Kuwahara, Takashi Sakai, Yuzuko Nokubo, Makoto Hiroi, Toyokazu Akimori
International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2024; 120: 109800. CrossRef
Xanthogranulomatous appendicitis
Elina Sor, Igor Mishin
Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova. Medical Sciences.2024; 77(3): 265. CrossRef
A case of xanthogranulomatous appendicitis that was difficult to diagnose
Yusaku WATANABE, Shingo SHIOYA, Tetsuhito ARIKIZONO, Syuzou TASHIMA, Toshiyuki CHOSA, Hiroshi SUGITA, Kyouko MIZUKAMI, Kentaro TOKUDOME, Kaoru HIJIKURO, Kouichirou SHIGETA
Choonpa Igaku.2023; 50(2): 121. CrossRef
Focal Xanthogranulomatous Pyelonephritis on FDG PET/CT
Yong Liu, Guansheng Tong, Zhe Wen
Clinical Nuclear Medicine.2022; 47(9): e611. CrossRef
Xanthogranulomatous appendicitis misdiagnosed as a malignant tumor: A case report
Subo Wang, Tingchong Jiang, Xiaoxuan Zhou, Xiaoming Mao
Asian Journal of Surgery.2022; 45(8): 1650. CrossRef
A Case of Laparoscopic Cecectomy for Xanthogranulomatous Appendicitis
Marina ISOKAWA, Aya SATO, Ken IMAIZUMI, Kentaro SATO, Hiroyuki KASAJIMA, Hanae KUSHIBIKI, Norihiko SHIMOYAMA, Kazuaki NAKANISHI
Nihon Rinsho Geka Gakkai Zasshi (Journal of Japan Surgical Association).2022; 83(11): 1948. CrossRef
Xanthogranulomatous appendicitis: A comprehensive literature review
Sami Akbulut, Khaled Demyati, Cemalettin Koc, Adem Tuncer, Emrah Sahin, Mehmet Ozcan, Emine Samdanci
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2021; 13(1): 76. CrossRef
A Case of Xanthogranulomatous Appendicitis That Was Difficult to Differentiate from Appendiceal Mucocele
Hirofumi Doi, Kazuhiro Toyota, Satoshi Hirahara, Yuta Kuhara, Kenji Shirakawa, Tetsuhiro Hara, Hironori Kobayashi, Yoshihiro Sakashita, Motoki Ninomiya, Fumio Shimamoto, Katsunari Miyamoto
The Japanese Journal of Gastroenterological Surgery.2021; 54(3): 208. CrossRef
A Case of Xanthogranulomatous Appendicitis
Shoichiro NAKAJO, HoMin KIM, Ryoji NONAKA, Jun KAJIHARA, Masami IMAKITA, Toshikazu ITO, Masahiro TANEMURA
Nihon Rinsho Geka Gakkai Zasshi (Journal of Japan Surgical Association).2019; 80(12): 2233. CrossRef

Original Article

Feasibility and Safety of a Fold-Over Diverting Ileostomy Reversal After Rectal Cancer Surgery: Case-Matched Comparison to the Resection Technique: Jinock Cheong, Jeonghyun Kang, Im-Kyung Kim, Nam Kyu Kim, Seung-Kook Sohn, Kang Young Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2014;30(3):118-121. Published online June 23, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2014.30.3.118

5,992 View
36 Download
7 Web of Science
6 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

Compared to the stapling technique, the fold-over technique (FO) has the benefit of avoiding the sacrifice of the bowel segment. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between the FO and a conventional resection.

Methods

Between June 2008 and March 2012, a total of 242 patients who underwent a diverting ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery were selected. Among them, 29 patients underwent the FO. Using propensity scores to adjust for body mass index, previous abdominal surgery history, rectal cancer surgery type (open vs. minimally invasive), and reason for ileostomy (protective aim vs. leakage management), we created a well-balanced cohort by matching each patient who underwent the FO, as the study group, with two patients who underwent a stapled or a hand-sewn technique with bowel resection (RE), as the control group (FO : RE = 1 : 2). Morbidity and perioperative recovery were compared between the two groups.

Results

Twenty-four and forty-eight patients were allocated to the FO and the RE groups, respectively. The mean operation time was 91 ± 26 minutes in the FO group and 97 ± 34 minutes in the RE group (P = 0.494). The overall morbidity rates were not different between the two groups (12.5% in FO vs. 14.6% in RE, P = 1.000). The rate of postoperative ileus was similar between the two groups (8.3% in FO vs. 12.5% in RE, P = 0.710). Although time to resumption of soft diet was shorter in the FO group than in the RE group, the lengths of hospital stay were not different.

Conclusion

The FO and the conventional resection have similar short-term clinical outcomes for diverting ileostomy reversal.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Comparison of hand-sewn anterior repair, resection and hand-sewn anastomosis, resection and stapled anastomosis techniques for the reversal of diverting loop ileostomy after low anterior rectal resection: a randomized clinical trial
Seyed Mostafa Meshkati Yazd, Reza Shahriarirad, Mohammad Reza Keramati, Mehdi Fallahi, Soheila-sadat Nourmohammadi, Alireza Kazemeini, Mohammad Sadegh Fazeli, Amir Keshvari
Techniques in Coloproctology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Does the timing of protective ileostomy closure post-low anterior resection have an impact on the outcome? A retrospective study
Fozan Sauri, Ahmad Sakr, Ho Seung Kim, Mohammed Alessa, Radwan Torky, Eman Zakarneh, Seung Yoon Yang, Nam Kyu Kim
Asian Journal of Surgery.2021; 44(1): 374. CrossRef
Modified Colon Leakage Score to Predict Anastomotic Leakage in Patients Who Underwent Left-Sided Colorectal Surgery
Seung Up Yang, Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Jeonghyun Kang
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2019; 8(9): 1450. CrossRef
Factors affecting the morbidity and mortality of diverting stoma closure: retrospective cohort analysis of twelve-year period
Bojan Krebs, Arpad Ivanecz, Stojan Potrc, Matjaz Horvat
Radiology and Oncology.2019; 53(3): 331. CrossRef
Impact of prior abdominal surgery on postoperative prolonged ileus after ileostomy repair
Im-kyung Kim, Jeonghyun Kang, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim, Seung-Kook Sohn
Asian Journal of Surgery.2018; 41(1): 86. CrossRef
Endless Arguments Over Diversion Stomas
Seung Chul Heo
Annals of Coloproctology.2014; 30(3): 103. CrossRef

Case Reports

An Extragastrointestinal Stromal Tumor in the Omentum With Peritoneal Seeding Mimicking an Appendiceal Mucinous Cancer With Carcinomatosis: Jeonghyun Kang, Tae Joo Jeon, Sun Och Yoon, Kang Young Lee, Seung-Kook Sohn; Ann Coloproctol. 2014;30(2):93-96. Published online April 25, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2014.30.2.93

5,819 View
49 Download
5 Web of Science
6 Citations

Abstract PDF

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. These tumors tend to present most frequently in the stomach, followed by the small intestine. GISTs can also arise from the omentum, retroperitoneum, mesentery, or pleura and are termed extragastrointestinal stromal tumors (EGISTs) when they do so. EGISTs arising from the omentum are very rare. Due to the limited incidence of EGISTs in the omentum, the diagnostic criteria are not well established, and making a correct diagnosis may be difficult. In this report, we present a case of an EGIST of the omentum with peritoneal metastasis that was initially suspected to be an appendiceal mucinous carcinoma with carcinomatosis on positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

An update on gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) with a focus on extragastrointestinal stromal tumors (EGISTs)
Fatima Usama, Rohullah Rasikh, Khawaja Hassam, Mansoor Rahman, FNU Khalil Ur Rehman, Iman Waheed Khan, Daryl T -Y Lau
Gastroenterology Report.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Primary Extragastrointestinal Stromal Tumor of Greater Omentum with Intraperitoneal Bleeding
Masatoshi Kataoka, Tsukasa Saitoh, Kousaku Kawashima, Tomotaka Yazaki, Hiroki Sonoyama, Eiko Okimoto, Akihiko Oka, Yoshiyuki Mishima, Tsuyoshi Mishiro, Naoki Oshima, Kotaro Shibagaki, Hiroshi Tobita, Ichiro Moriyama, Norihisa Ishimura, Mamiko Nagase, Nori
Internal Medicine.2021; 60(21): 3413. CrossRef
Recurrent and metastatic extragastrointestinal stromal tumors of the mesentery with C-KIT and PDGFRA mutations: a case report
Huang Yayu, Zhang Changmao, Dai Yijun, Lin Na, Xu Tianwen, Dai Yangbin
Cancer Biology & Therapy.2020; 21(2): 101. CrossRef
Mucinous Carcinomatosis: A Rare Association between an Ovarian Tumor and an E-GIST
Hugo Palma Rios, André Goulart, Pedro Leão
Case Reports in Surgery.2018; 2018: 1. CrossRef
Extra-gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Report of primary tumour in the omentum
E.N. Valdes-Peregrina, M. Hernández-González, O. de León-Pacheco, S. Mendoza-Ramírez
Revista Médica del Hospital General de México.2018; 81(4): 221. CrossRef
Clinicopathological features and prognosis of omental gastrointestinal stromal tumor: evaluation of a pooled case series
Fan Feng, Yangzi Tian, Zhen Liu, Shushang Liu, Guanghui Xu, Man Guo, Xiao Lian, Daiming Fan, Hongwei Zhang
Scientific Reports.2016;[Epub] CrossRef

Efficacy of Imatinib Mesylate Neoadjuvant Treatment for a Locally Advanced Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Kyu Jong Yoon, Nam Kyu Kim, Kang Young Lee, Byung Soh Min, Hyuk Hur, Jeonghyun Kang, Sarah Lee; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2011;27(3):147-152. Published online June 30, 2011; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2011.27.3.147

5,597 View
37 Download
10 Citations

Abstract PDF

Surgery is the standard treatment for a primary gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST); however, surgical resection is often not curative, particularly for large GISTs. In the past decade, with imatinib mesylate (IM), management strategies for GISTs have evolved significantly, and now IM is the standard care for patients with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic GISTs. Adjuvant therapy with imatinib was recently approved for use, and preoperative imatinib is an emerging treatment option for patients who require cytoreductive therapy. IM neoadjuvant therapy for primary GISTs has been reported, but there is no consensus on the dose of the drug, the duration of treatment and the optimal time of surgery. These are critical because drug resistance or tumor progression can develop with a prolonged treatment. This report describes two cases of large rectal malignant GISTs, for which a abdominoperineal resection was initially anticipated. The two patients received IM preoperative treatment; we followed-up with CT or magnetic resonance imaging to access the response. After 9 months of treatment, a multi-disciplinary consensus that maximal benefit from imatinib had been achieved was reached. We determined the best time for surgical intervention and successfully performed sphincter-preserving surgery before resistance to imatinib or tumor progression occurred. We believe that a multidisciplinary team approach, considerating the optimal duration of therapy and the timing of surgery, is required to optimize treatment outcome.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Safety, effectiveness and the optimal duration of preoperative imatinib in locally advanced gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A retrospective cohort study
Xiangfei Sun, Xiaohan Lin, Qiang Zhang, Chao Li, Ping Shu, Xiaodong Gao, Kuntang Shen
Cancer Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinicopathological and Immunohistochemical Characterization of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumour at Four Tertiary Health Centers in Nigeria Using CD117, DOG1, and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 Biomarkers
Mumini Wemimo Rasheed, Afolayan Enoch Abiodun, Uchechukwu Brian Eziagu, Najeem Adedamola Idowu, Abdullahi Kabiru, Taiwo Adeyemi Adegboye, Waheed Akanni Oluogun, Adekunle Adebayo Ayoade
Annals of African Medicine.2023; 22(4): 501. CrossRef
Open transanal resection of low rectal stromal tumor following neoadjuvant therapy of imatinib mesylate: Report of 11 cases and review of literature
Qiang Sun, Ning Su, Xinxing Li, Zhiqian Hu, Weijun Wang
Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology.2020; 16(3): 123. CrossRef
Using endoscopy to minimize the extent of resection in the management of giant GISTs of the stomach
Hishaam Ismael, Yury Ragoza, Steven Cox
International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2017; 36: 26. CrossRef
Combined Therapy of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors
Piotr Rutkowski, Daphne Hompes
Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America.2016; 25(4): 735. CrossRef
Indications for surgery in advanced/metastatic GIST
Samuel J. Ford, Alessandro Gronchi
European Journal of Cancer.2016; 63: 154. CrossRef
Surgical treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumour of the rectum in the era of imatinib
M J Wilkinson, J E F Fitzgerald, D C Strauss, A J Hayes, J M Thomas, C Messiou, C Fisher, C Benson, P P Tekkis, I Judson
British Journal of Surgery.2015; 102(8): 965. CrossRef
Intolerance to Imatinib in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Case Report and a Review of Literature
Yousra Akasbi, Samia Arifi, Sami Aziz Brahmi, Fatima Zahra El Mrabet, Nawfel Mellas, Fatima Zahra Mernisi, Omar El Mesbahi
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer.2014; 45(S1): 71. CrossRef
Primary localized rectal/pararectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: results of surgical and multimodal therapy from the French Sarcoma group
Thanh-Khoa Huynh, Pierre Meeus, Philippe Cassier, Olivier Bouché, Sophie Lardière-Deguelte, Antoine Adenis, Thierry André, Julien Mancini, Olivier Collard, Michael Montemurro, Emmanuelle Bompas, Maria Rios, Nicolas Isambert, Didier Cupissol, Jean-Yves Bla
BMC Cancer.2014;[Epub] CrossRef
Neoadjuvant Imatinib in Locally Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST): The EORTC STBSG Experience
Piotr Rutkowski, Alessandro Gronchi, Peter Hohenberger, Sylvie Bonvalot, Patrick Schöffski, Sebastian Bauer, Elena Fumagalli, Pawel Nyckowski, Buu-Phuc Nguyen, Jan Martijn Kerst, Marco Fiore, Elzbieta Bylina, Mathias Hoiczyk, Annemieke Cats, Paolo G. Casa
Annals of Surgical Oncology.2013; 20(9): 2937. CrossRef

Review

Optimal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: the Role of Robotic Surgery from an Expert's View: Nam-Kyu Kim, Jeonghyun Kang; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2010;26(6):377-387. Published online December 31, 2010; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2010.26.6.377

7,639 View
43 Download
67 Citations

Abstract PDF

Total mesorectal excision (TME) has gained worldwide acceptance as a standard surgical technique in the treatment of rectal cancer. Ever since laparoscopic surgery was first applied to TME for rectal cancer, with increasing penetration rates, especially in Asia, an unstable camera platform, the limited mobility of straight laparoscopic instruments, the two-dimensional imaging, and a poor ergonomic position for surgeons have been regarded as limitations. Robotic technology was developed in an attempt to reduce the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. The robotic system has many advantages, including a more ergonomic position, stable camera platform and stereoscopic view, as well as elimination of tremor and subsequent improved dexterity. Current comparison data between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery show similar intraoperative results and morbidity, postoperative recovery, and short-term oncologic outcomes. Potential benefits of a robotic system include reduction of surgeon's fatigue during surgery, improved performance and safety for intracorporeal suture, reduction of postoperative complications, sharper and more meticulous dissection, and completion of autonomic nerve preservation techniques. However, the higher cost for a robotic system still remains an obstacle to wide application, and many socioeconomic issues remain to be solved in the future. In addition, we need more concrete evidence regarding the merits for both patients and surgeons, as well as the merits compared to conventional laparoscopic techniques. Therefore, we need large-scale prospective randomized clinical trials to prove the potential benefits of robot TME for the treatment of rectal cancer.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The urinary and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hua Yang, Lei Zhou
Surgery Today.2024; 54(5): 397. CrossRef
Deep neuromuscular block attenuates intra‐abdominal pressure and inflammation and improves post‐operative cognition in prostate cancer patients following robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy
Guangjun Hu, Weidong Shao, Zhuo Chen, Bixi Li, Bo Xu
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic surgery is associated with a decreased risk of circumferential resection margin positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer undergoing mesorectal excision: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mitsuru Ishizuka, Norisuke Shibuya, Hiroyuki Hachiya, Yusuke Nishi, Takahiro Kono, Masashi Takayanagi, Tetsutaro Nemoto, Keisuke Ihara, Takayuki Shiraki, Takatsugu Matsumoto, Shozo Mori, Takatoshi Nakamura, Taku Aoki, Tsunekazu Mizushima
European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2024; 50(10): 108538. CrossRef
Learning curve of robotic rectal surgery using risk-adjusted cumulative summation: a 5-year institutional experience
Hiroshi Oshio, Tsuneo Konta, Yukiko Oshima, Gen Yunome, Shinji Okazaki, Ichiro Kawamura, Yuya Ashitomi, Masaaki Kawai, Hiroaki Musha, Fuyuhiko Motoi
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Risk factors for and longitudinal course of male sexual dysfunction after robotic rectal cancer surgery
Marie Hanaoka, Hiroyasu Kagawa, Akio Shiomi, Hitoshi Hino, Shoichi Manabe, Yusuke Yamaoka, Yusuke Kinugasa
Colorectal Disease.2023; 25(5): 932. CrossRef
Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis
Odhrán K. Ryan, Katie L. Doogan, Éanna J. Ryan, Mark Donnelly, Ian S. Reynolds, Ben Creavin, Matthew G. Davey, Michael E. Kelly, Rory Kennelly, Ann Hanly, Seán T. Martin, Des C. Winter
European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2023; 49(8): 1362. CrossRef
Current Status of Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery
Keisuke Minamimura, Keisuke Hara, Satoshi Matsumoto, Tomohiko Yasuda, Hiroki Arai, Daisuke Kakinuma, Yukio Ohshiro, Youichi Kawano, Masanori Watanabe, Hideyuki Suzuki, Hiroshi Yoshida
Journal of Nippon Medical School.2023; 90(4): 308. CrossRef
Potential urinary function benefits of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introductory phase
Hiroshi Oshio, Yukiko Oshima, Gen Yunome, Mitsuyasu Yano, Shinji Okazaki, Yuya Ashitomi, Hiroaki Musha, Yukinori Kamio, Fuyuhiko Motoi
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 16(1): 159. CrossRef
Colorectal cancer surgery: by Cambridge Medical Robotics Versius Surgical Robot System—a single-institution study. Our experience
Shailesh P. Puntambekar, K. N. Rajesh, Arjun Goel, Mangesh Hivre, Suyog Bharambe, Mihir Chitale, Mangesh Panse
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 16(3): 587. CrossRef
Surgical approach for rectal cancer: A network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME approaches
Odhrán K. Ryan, Éanna J. Ryan, Ben Creavin, Emanuele Rausa, Michael E. Kelly, Fausto Petrelli, Gianluca Bonitta, Rory Kennelly, Ann Hanly, Seán T. Martin, Des C. Winter
European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2021; 47(2): 285. CrossRef
Predictive and Diagnostic Biomarkers of Anastomotic Leakage: A Precision Medicine Approach for Colorectal Cancer Patients
Mark Gray, Jamie R. K. Marland, Alan F. Murray, David J. Argyle, Mark A. Potter
Journal of Personalized Medicine.2021; 11(6): 471. CrossRef
Transanal total mesorectal excision and transabdominal robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A retrospective study
Hiroshi Oshio, Yukiko Oshima, Gen Yunome, Shinji Okazaki, Ichiro Kawamura, Yuya Ashitomi, Hiroaki Musha, Masaaki Kawai, Fuyuhiko Motoi
Annals of Medicine and Surgery.2021; 70: 102902. CrossRef
Comparison of the quality of total mesorectal excision after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study
Keehyun Park, Sohyun Kim, Hye Won Lee, Sung Uk Bae, Seong Kyu Baek, Woon Kyung Jeong
Korean Journal of Clinical Oncology.2021; 17(2): 82. CrossRef
Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature
Hidetoshi Katsuno, Tsunekazu Hanai, Koji Masumori, Yoshikazu Koide, Keigo Ashida, Hiroshi Matsuoka, Yosuke Tajima, Tomoyoshi Endo, Masahiro Mizuno, Yeongcheol Cheong, Kotaro Maeda, Ichiro Uyama
Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2020; 4(1): 14. CrossRef
Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute
Homoud Alawfi, Ho Seung Kim, Seung Yoon Yang, Nam Kyu Kim
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology.2020; 11(4): 552. CrossRef
Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer (RALS): A Review of the Literature
Emil T. Filipov, Tsvetomir M. Ivanov
Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Research.2020; 13(2): 100. CrossRef
Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving total mesorectal excision: A propensity case‐matched analysis
Pavan Sugoor, Kamlesh Verma, Aditi Chaturvedi, Sadhana Kannan, Ashwin Desouza, Vikas Ostwal, Reena Engineer, Avanish Saklani
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2019;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal tumour surgery: a cohort study
D. Asklid, R. Gerjy, F. Hjern, K. Pekkari, U. O. Gustafsson
Colorectal Disease.2019; 21(2): 191. CrossRef
Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis
Xi-Yu Sun, Lai Xu, Jun-Yang Lu, Guan-Nan Zhang
Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies.2019; 28(3): 135. CrossRef
Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness
Youngbae Jeon, Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik
The Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2019; 22(4): 139. CrossRef
The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery using a propensity score analysis
Soichiro Ishihara, Tomomichi Kiyomatsu, Kazushige Kawai, Toshiaki Tanaka, Keisuke Hata, Shinsuke Kazama, Eiji Sunami, Hiroaki Nozawa, Toshiaki Watanabe
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2018; 33(8): 1047. CrossRef
The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score‐matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery
H. J. Kim, G.‐S. Choi, J. S. Park, S. Y. Park, C. S. Yang, H. J. Lee
Colorectal Disease.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
Laparoscopic vs Robotic Surgery in Colorectal Cases
Shalmali Alva
World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery with DVD.2018; 11(1): 43. CrossRef
Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and the effect of learning curve
Yu-Min Huang, Yan Jiun Huang, Po-Li Wei
Medicine.2017; 96(40): e8171. CrossRef
Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si®
Luca Morelli, Simone Guadagni, Gregorio Di Franco, Matteo Palmeri, Giovanni Caprili, Cristiano D'Isidoro, Luigi Cobuccio, Emanuele Marciano, Giulio Di Candio, Franco Mosca
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2017; 13(1): e1728. CrossRef
Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid–low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy
Dae Ro Lim, Sung Uk Bae, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim
Surgical Endoscopy.2017; 31(4): 1728. CrossRef
Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis
Yanlai Sun, Huirong Xu, Zengjun Li, Jianjun Han, Wentao Song, Junwei Wang, Zhongfa Xu
World Journal of Surgical Oncology.2016;[Epub] CrossRef
Totally robotic rectal resection: an experience of the first 100 consecutive cases
J. Ahmed, M. Nasir, K. Flashman, J. Khan, A. Parvaiz
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2016; 31(4): 869. CrossRef
Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Medium-Term Comparative Outcomes from a Multicenter Study
Carlo Corbellini, Roberto Biffi, Fabrizio Luca, Antonio Chiappa, Stefano Costa, Emilio Bertani, Stefano Bona, Davide Lombardi, Darina Tamayo, Edoardo Botteri, Bruno Andreoni
Tumori Journal.2016; 102(4): 414. CrossRef
Outcomes in 132 patients following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with greater than 5-year follow-up
John H. Marks, Renee Huang, Dominique McKeever, Morgan Greenfield
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(1): 307. CrossRef
Effects of robotic rectal surgery on sexual and urinary functions in male patients
Shinji Ozeki, Kotaro Maeda, Tsunekazu Hanai, Koji Masumori, Hidetoshi Katsuno, Hiroshi Takahashi
Surgery Today.2016; 46(4): 491. CrossRef
Robotic Surgery for Colon and Rectal Cancer
Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik
Current Oncology Reports.2016;[Epub] CrossRef
A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery
Michael S. Tam, Christodoulos Kaoutzanis, Andrew J. Mullard, Scott E. Regenbogen, Michael G. Franz, Samantha Hendren, Greta Krapohl, James F. Vandewarker, Richard M. Lampman, Robert K. Cleary
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(2): 455. CrossRef
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: Case-Matched Study of Short-Term Outcomes
Yong Sok Kim, Min Jung Kim, Sung Chan Park, Dae Kyung Sohn, Dae Yong Kim, Hee Jin Chang, Byung-Ho Nam, Jae Hwan Oh
Cancer Research and Treatment.2016; 48(1): 225. CrossRef
A Pooled Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer
Yue Wang, Guo-Hua Zhao, Helen Yang, Jie Lin
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques.2016; 26(3): 259. CrossRef
Robotics in Colorectal Surgery
Allison Weaver, Scott Steele
F1000Research.2016; 5: 2373. CrossRef
Recent advances in robotic surgery for rectal cancer
Soichiro Ishihara, Kensuke Otani, Koji Yasuda, Takeshi Nishikawa, Junichiro Tanaka, Toshiaki Tanaka, Tomomichi Kiyomatsu, Keisuke Hata, Kazushige Kawai, Hiroaki Nozawa, Shinsuke Kazama, Hironori Yamaguchi, Eiji Sunami, Joji Kitayama, Toshiaki Watanabe
International Journal of Clinical Oncology.2015; 20(4): 633. CrossRef
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: a Meta-analysis of Eight Studies
Binghong Xiong, Li Ma, Wei Huang, Qikang Zhao, Yong Cheng, Jingshan Liu
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2015; 19(3): 516. CrossRef
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
George Melich, Young Ki Hong, Jieun Kim, Hyuk Hur, Seung Hyuk Baik, Nam Kyu Kim, A. Sender Liberman, Byung Soh Min
Surgical Endoscopy.2015; 29(3): 558. CrossRef
Robotic rectal surgery
Ahmet Rencuzogullari, Emre Gorgun
Journal of Surgical Oncology.2015; 112(3): 326. CrossRef
The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques
Seungwan Park, Nam Kyu Kim
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2015; 30(7): 837. CrossRef
SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)
Shawn Tsuda, Dmitry Oleynikov, Jon Gould, Dan Azagury, Bryan Sandler, Matthew Hutter, Sharona Ross, Eric Haas, Fred Brody, Richard Satava
Surgical Endoscopy.2015; 29(10): 2873. CrossRef
Robotic and laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of 21 consecutive series
Sung Uk Bae, Avanish P. Saklani, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2014; 86(2): 76. CrossRef
Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection
Deborah S. Keller, Anthony J. Senagore, Justin K. Lawrence, Brad J. Champagne, Conor P. Delaney
Surgical Endoscopy.2014; 28(1): 212. CrossRef
Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis
Binghong Xiong, Li Ma, CaiQuan Zhang, Yong Cheng
Journal of Surgical Research.2014; 188(2): 404. CrossRef
Robotic assisted minimally invasive pelvic exenteration in advanced rectal cancer: review and case report
P. R. Nanayakkara, S. A. Ahmed, D. Oudit, S. T. O’Dwyer, C. R. Selvasekar
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2014; 8(2): 173. CrossRef
Robotic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence
E. H. Aly
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2014; 29(1): 1. CrossRef
Quality of total mesorectal excision and depth of circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer: a matched comparison of the first 20 robotic cases
M. Barnajian, D. Pettet, E. Kazi, C. Foppa, R. Bergamaschi
Colorectal Disease.2014; 16(8): 603. CrossRef
Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: Current immediate clinical and oncological outcomes
Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2014; 20(39): 14359. CrossRef
Laparoscopic versus Robotic-assisted Rectal Surgery: A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes
Monica T. Young, Gopal Menon, Timothy F. Feldmann, Steven Mills, Joseph Carmichael, Michael J. Stamos, Alessio Pigazzi
The American Surgeon™.2014; 80(10): 1059. CrossRef
Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer
Suguru Hasegawa, Koya Hida, Kenji Kawada, Yoshiharu Sakai
Nippon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi.2013; 66(10): 971. CrossRef
The current status of robotic oncologic surgery
Hua‐yin Yu, David F. Friedlander, Sunil Patel, Jim C. Hu
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.2013; 63(1): 45. CrossRef
Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Prophylactic Antibiotic Administration in Colorectal Surgery: A Survey of the Current Status in Korea
Byung Mo Kang, Kil Yeon Lee, Sun Jin Park, Suk-Hwan Lee
Annals of Coloproctology.2013; 29(4): 160. CrossRef
Impact of Robotic Surgery on Sexual and Urinary Functions After Fully Robotic Nerve-Sparing Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer
Fabrizio Luca, Manuela Valvo, Tiago Leal Ghezzi, Massimiliano Zuccaro, Sabina Cenciarelli, Cristina Trovato, Angelica Sonzogni, Roberto Biffi
Annals of Surgery.2013; 257(4): 672. CrossRef
Unique Complications of Robotic Colorectal Surgery
Sonia Ramamoorthy, Vincent Obias
Surgical Clinics of North America.2013; 93(1): 273. CrossRef
Robot-assisted low anterior resection in fifty-three consecutive patients: an Indian experience
R. D. Kenawadekar, R. Z. Dhange, A. Pandit, M. S. Bandawar, S. Joshi, G. Agarwal, A. P. Jagtap, S. Puntambekar
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2013; 7(4): 311. CrossRef
Does Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery Offer Improved Early Postoperative Outcomes?
Rosaria Scarpinata, Emad H. Aly
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2013; 56(2): 253. CrossRef
Initial experience of robotic intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer
Soo Yun Moon, Min-Su Park, Sun Jin Park, Kil Yeon Lee
Korean Journal of Clinical Oncology.2013; 9(1): 42. CrossRef
Current Status and Future Perspectives of Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
Hidetoshi Katsuno, Koutarou Maeda, Tsunekaze Hanai, Harunobu Sato, Koji Masumori, Yoshikazu Koide, Hiroshi Matsuoka, Miho Shiota, Tomoyoshi Endo, Shinji Matsuoka, Kohei Hatta, Masahiro Mizuno, Kunihiro Tohyama
Nippon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi.2013; 66(10): 982. CrossRef
Artificial interfaces (“AI”) in surgery: Historic development, current status and program implementation in the public health sector
Donagh A. Healy, Shane P. Murphy, John P. Burke, John C. Coffey
Surgical Oncology.2013; 22(2): 77. CrossRef
Robotic Use in Colorectal Disease: A Critical Analysis
Marco Ettore Allaix, Alessandro Fichera
Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2013; 24(1): 14. CrossRef
Oncologic Outcomes of a Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy for Colon Cancer: Results of a 3-Year Follow-up
Jung Hoon Cho, Dae Ro Lim, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology.2012; 28(1): 42. CrossRef
Current status of robotic rectal cancer surgery
Jeonghyun Kang, Kang Young Lee
Colorectal Cancer.2012; 1(6): 525. CrossRef
Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta‐analysis of short‐term outcome
S. Trastulli, E. Farinella, R. Cirocchi, D. Cavaliere, N. Avenia, F. Sciannameo, N. Gullà, G. Noya, C. Boselli
Colorectal Disease.2012;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic versus Laparoscopic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis
Sameer Memon, Alexander G. Heriot, Declan G. Murphy, Mathias Bressel, A. Craig Lynch
Annals of Surgical Oncology.2012; 19(7): 2095. CrossRef
Robotic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review
Sami AlAsari, Byung Soh Min
ISRN Surgery.2012; 2012: 1. CrossRef
Risk Factor Analysis of Postoperative Complications After Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery
Jeonghyun Kang, Byung Soh Min, Yoon Ah Park, Hyuk Hur, Seung Hyuk Baik, Nam Kyu Kim, Seung Kook Sohn, Kang Young Lee
World Journal of Surgery.2011; 35(11): 2555. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search