Annals of Coloproctology

Display

Sort by :

Editorial

Multimodal analgesia for postoperative pain: pursuing liberation from pain, not redemption: Soo Yeun Park; Ann Coloproctol. 2024;40(3):189-190. Published online June 12, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2024.00304.0043

9,469 View
253 Download
1 Web of Science
2 Citations

PDF

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Mucosal advancement flap versus ligation of the inter-sphincteric fistula tract for management of trans-sphincteric perianal fistulas in the elderly: a retrospective study
Tamer A. A. M. Habeeb, Massimo Chiaretti, Igor A. Kryvoruchko, Antonio Pesce, Aristotelis Kechagias, Abd Al-Kareem Elias, Abdelmonem A. M. Adam, Mohamed A. Gadallah, Saad Mohamed Ali Ahmed, Ahmed Khyrallh, Mohammed H. Alsayed, Esmail Tharwat Kamel Awad, M
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of anrikefon injection for postoperative analgesia in specific patient groups (elderly, liver damage, renal damage) after abdominal surgery
Younian Xu, Tianhao Zhang, Xin Huang, Sanawaer Tuerhong, Xiangdong Chen
Journal of Anesthesia and Translational Medicine.2024; 3(4): 202. CrossRef

Video

Video clip

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with aortocaval lymphadenectomy, and pelvic peritoneum partial resection for ascending colon cancer: Hannah Kim, An Na Seo, Soo Yeun Park; Ann Coloproctol. 2023;39(3):283-286. Published online February 9, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00780.0111

4,504 View
122 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Citations

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

The aim of this video is to present the procedural details of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with aortocaval (infrarenal aortic bifurcation) lymphadenectomy, partial resection of the pelvic peritoneum (peritoneal carcinomatosis index, 3), and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in a patient who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage IVc colorectal cancer. The total operation time was 290 minutes, and the patient was discharged on a postoperative day 13 without any complications. No postoperative complications occurred until postoperative day 60. The pathological stage of the tumor was determined to be T3N2bM1c. The pelvic peritoneal nodule was pathologically confirmed as a metastatic lesion. Among the 12 harvested aortocaval lymph nodes, 6 were metastatic lymph nodes. The minimally invasive approach was safe and feasible in this highly selected patient with colon cancer, aortocaval lymph nodes, and peritoneal metastases.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Clinical Effectiveness of Fluorescence Lymph Node Mapping Using ICG for Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy: A Prospective Case–Control Study
Gyung Mo Son, Mi Sook Yun, In Young Lee, Sun Bin Im, Kyung Hee Kim, Su Bum Park, Tae Un Kim, Dong-Hoon Shin, Armaan M. Nazir, Gi Won Ha
Cancers.2023; 15(20): 4927. CrossRef

Editorial

Benign GI diease, Inflammatory bowel disease

Surgical Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Crohn Disease: A Long Way to Go to Identify the Optimal Method: Soo Yeun Park; Ann Coloproctol. 2020;36(4):207-208. Published online August 31, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2020.07.03

4,204 View
91 Download

PDF

Original Articles

Clinical Outcomes of a Redo for a Failed Colorectal or Coloanal Anastomosis: In Teak Woo, Jun Seok Park, Gyu-Seog Choi, Soo Yeun Park, Hye Jin Kim, In Kyu Park; Ann Coloproctol. 2018;34(5):259-265. Published online October 31, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2018.05.04

6,203 View
134 Download
12 Web of Science
13 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose
Redo surgery in patients with a persistent anastomotic failure (PAF) is a rare procedure, and data about this procedure are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of redo surgery in such patients.
Methods
Patients who underwent a redo anastomosis for PAF from January 2004 to November 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Data from a prospective colorectal database were analyzed. Success was defined as the combined absence of any anastomosis-related complications and a stoma at the last follow-up.
Results
A total of 1,964 patients who underwent curative surgery for rectal cancer during this study period were included. Among them, 32 consecutive patients underwent a redo anastomosis for PAF. Thirteen patients of those 32 had major anastomotic dehiscence with a pelvic sinus, 12 had a recto-vaginal fistula, and 7 had anastomosis stenosis. There were no postoperative deaths. The median operation time was 255 minutes (range, 80–480 minutes), and the median blood loss was 80 mL (range, 30–1,000 mL). The overall success rate was 78.1%, and the morbidity rate was 40.6%. Multivariable analyses showed that the primary tumor height at the lower level was the only statistically significant risk factor for redo surgery (P = 0.042; hazard ratio, 2.444).
Conclusion
In our experience, a redo anastomosis is a feasible surgical option that allows closure of a stoma in nearly 80% of patients. Lower tumor height (<5 cm from the anal verge) is the only independent risk factor for nonclosure of defunctioning stomas after primary rectal surgery.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Long-term Complications of Laparoscopic or Robotic Lateral Pelvic Node Dissection After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Hye Jin Kim, Gyu-Seog Choi, Jun Seok Park, Soo Yeun Park, Seung Ho Song, Sung Min Lee, Min Hye Jeong, Seung Hyun Cho
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2024; 67(4): 505. CrossRef
Outcomes of redo for failed colorectal or coloanal anastomoses: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ricardo Purchio Galletti, Gabriel Andrade Agareno, Lucas de Abreu Sesconetto, Rafael Benjamim Rosa da Silva, Rafael Vaz Pandini, Lucas Soares Gerbasi, Victor Edmond Seid, Sérgio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Francisco Tustumi
Annals of Coloproctology.2023; 39(5): 375. CrossRef
Turnbull-Cutait Pull-Through Procedure Is an Alternative to Permanent Ostomy in Patients With Complex Pelvic Fistulas
Olga A. Lavryk, Carla F. Justiniano, Bethany Bandi, Crinuta Floruta, Scott R. Steele, Tracy L. Hull
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2023; 66(12): 1539. CrossRef
Dealing with Complications of Colorectal Surgery Using the Transanal Approach—When and How?
K. Talboom, P. J. Tanis, W. A. Bemelman, R. Hompes
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2022; 35(02): 155. CrossRef
Multimodal treatment of colorectal postsurgical leaks: long-term results of the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) application
Damiano CHIARI, Carlotta LA RAJA, Benedetto MANGIAVILLANO, Paolo VERONESI, Marco PLATTO, Walter ZULIANI
Minerva Surgery.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Re-do laparoscopic esophagojejunostomy for anastomotic stenosis after laparoscopic total gastrectomy in gastric cancer
Dai Manaka, Sayuri Konishi, Hideo An, Kiyotaka Kawaguchi, Machi Yoneda, Masashi Fushitani, Takano Ota, Michina Morioka, Yusuke Okamura, Atsushi Ikeda, Naoya Sasaki, Shinya Hamasu, Ryuta Nishitai
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2022; 407(7): 3133. CrossRef
Redo-laparoscopy in the management of complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes
P. Fransvea, G. Costa, L. D’Agostino, G. Sganga, A. Serao
Techniques in Coloproctology.2021; 25(4): 371. CrossRef
Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery: An Effective Approach for Patients Who Require Redo Pelvic Surgery for Anastomotic Failure
Susanna S. Hill, Cristina R. Harnsberger, Sue J. Hahn, Paul R. Sturrock, Jennifer S. Davids, Karim Alavi, Justin A. Maykel
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2021; 64(3): 349. CrossRef
Re-Operative Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review
Constantine Halkias, Athanasios Zoikas, Zoe Garoufalia, Michalis K. Konstantinidis, Argyrios Ioannidis, Steven Wexner
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2021; 10(7): 1447. CrossRef
Second redo surgery after two consecutive failures of a colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: is it reasonable?
Camélia Labiad, Marie Monsinjon, Massimo Giacca, Yves Panis
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2021; 36(9): 2057. CrossRef
Treatment Modalities for Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery
Deborah S. Keller, K. Talboom, C.P.M van Helsdingen, Roel Hompes
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2021; 34(06): 431. CrossRef
Optimal strategies of rectovaginal fistula after rectal cancer surgery
In Teak Woo, Jun Seok Park, Gyu-Seog Choi, Soo Yeun Park, Hye Jin Kim, Hee Jae Lee
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2019; 97(3): 142. CrossRef
Safety of coloanal/ileoanal anastomosis during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis: results of 20 consecutive patients
Ozgul Duzgun, Murat Kalin
Journal of International Medical Research.2019; 47(10): 4911. CrossRef

Comparison of Surgical Skills in Laparoscopic and Robotic Tasks Between Experienced Surgeons and Novices in Laparoscopic Surgery: An Experimental Study: Hye Jin Kim, Gyu-Seog Choi, Jun Seok Park, Soo Yeun Park; Ann Coloproctol. 2014;30(2):71-76. Published online April 25, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2014.30.2.71

5,447 View
52 Download
42 Web of Science
38 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

Robotic surgery is known to provide an improved technical ability as compared to laparoscopic surgery. We aimed to compare the efficiency of surgical skills by performing the same experimental tasks using both laparoscopic and robotic systems in an attempt to determine if a robotic system has an advantage over laparoscopic system.

Methods

Twenty participants without any robotic experience, 10 laparoscopic novices (LN: medical students) and 10 laparoscopically-experienced surgeons (LE: surgical trainees and fellows), performed 3 laparoscopic and robotic training-box-based tasks. This entire set of tasks was performed twice.

Results

Compared with LN, LEs showed significantly better performances in all laparoscopic tasks and in robotic task 3 during the 2 trials. Within the LN group, better performances were shown in all robotic tasks compared with the same laparoscopic tasks. However, in the LE group, compared with the same laparoscopic tasks, significantly better performance was seen only in robotic task 1. When we compared the 2 sets of trials, in the second trial, LN showed better performances in laparoscopic task 2 and robotic task 3; LE showed significantly better performance only in robotic task 3.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery had better performance than laparoscopic surgery in all tasks during the two trials. However, these results were more noticeable for LN. These results suggest that robotic surgery can be easily learned without laparoscopic experience because of its technical advantages. However, further experimental trials are needed to investigate the advantages of robotic surgery in more detail.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Robotic Surgery in Severely Obese Frail Patients for the Treatment of Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia and Endometrial Cancer: A Propensity-Match Analysis at an ESGO-Accredited Center
Martina Arcieri, Federico Paparcura, Cristina Giorgiutti, Cristina Taliento, Giorgio Bogani, Lorenza Driul, Pantaleo Greco, Alfredo Ercoli, Vito Chiantera, Francesco Fanfani, Anna Fagotti, Giovanni Scambia, Andrea Mariani, Stefano Restaino, Giuseppe Vizzi
Cancers.2025; 17(3): 482. CrossRef
Design of Automatic Tool Replacement Mechanism for Laparoscopic Surgical Robot Arm for Solo Surgery
Daehwan Ko, Yeonkyoung Kim, Hongseok Lim, Sungmin Kim
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Learning Curves Associated With Robotic Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review
Abith Ganesh Kamath, Saran Singh Gill, Srikar Reddy Namireddy, Matija Krkovic
Orthopaedic Surgery.2025; 17(9): 2529. CrossRef
Laparoscopic but not open surgical skills can be transferred to robot‐assisted surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Mona W. Schmidt, Carolyn Fan, Karl F. Köppinger, Leon P. Schmidt, Anna Brechter, Eldrige F. Limen, Johannes A. Vey, Matthes Metz, Beat P. Müller‐Stich, Felix Nickel, Karl‐Friedrich Kowalewski
World Journal of Surgery.2024; 48(1): 14. CrossRef
Transferring laparoscopic skills to robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review
Karishma Behera, Matthew McKenna, Laurie Smith, Gerard McKnight, James Horwood, Michael M. Davies, Jared Torkington, James Ansell
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Looking to the Future; Veterinary Robotic Surgery
Nicole J. Buote
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice.2024; 54(4): 735. CrossRef
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors of the Stomach: Is There Any Advantage of Robotic Resections? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Carlo Alberto Schena, Andrea-Pierre Luzzi, Vito Laterza, Belinda De Simone, Filippo Aisoni, Paschalis Gavriilidis, Fausto Catena, Federico Coccolini, Francesca Morciano, Fausto Rosa, Francesco Marchegiani, Nicola de’Angelis
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.2024; 34(7): 603. CrossRef
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic short- and long-term outcomes in complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colonic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Pedja Cuk, Mohamad Jawhara, Issam Al-Najami, Per Helligsø, Andreas Kristian Pedersen, Mark Bremholm Ellebæk
Techniques in Coloproctology.2023; 27(3): 171. CrossRef
Force-based assessment of tissue handling skills in simulation training for robot-assisted surgery
A. Masie Rahimi, Sem F. Hardon, E. Willuth, F. Lang, Caelan M. Haney, Eleni A. Felinska, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Beat P. Müller-Stich, Tim Horeman, F. Nickel, Freek Daams
Surgical Endoscopy.2023; 37(6): 4414. CrossRef
The future of robotics in the treatment of abdominal wall hernias: A narrative review
Estella Y Huang, Daniel Chung, Bryan J Sandler, Garth R Jacobsen, Santiago Horgan, Ryan C Broderick
International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery.2023; 6(2): 81. CrossRef
Transfer of skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review
Pia Iben Pietersen, Peter Hertz, Rikke Groth Olsen, Louise Birch Møller, Lars Konge, Flemming Bjerrum
Surgical Endoscopy.2023; 37(12): 9030. CrossRef
Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Huiming Wu, Renkai Guo, Huiyu Li
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study
E. Willuth, S. F. Hardon, F. Lang, C. M. Haney, E. A. Felinska, K. F. Kowalewski, B. P. Müller-Stich, T. Horeman, F. Nickel
Surgical Endoscopy.2022; 36(2): 1064. CrossRef
Minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for gynaecological malignancy: A single-centre case series and review of the literature
Rebecca Karkia, Anil Tailor, Patricia Ellis, Thumuluru Madhuri, Andrea Scala, James Read, Matthew Perry, Krishna Patil, Adam Blackburn, Simon Butler-Manuel, Jayanta Chatterjee
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology.2022; 274: 56. CrossRef
Patient-Related Functional Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Rectal Surgery Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Julie Flynn, Jose T. Larach, Joseph C.H. Kong, Peadar S. Waters, Jacob J. McCormick, Satish K. Warrier, Alexander Heriot
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2022; 65(10): 1191. CrossRef
Transfer of open and laparoscopic skills to robotic surgery: a systematic review
Baldev Chahal, Abdullatif Aydın, Mohammad S. Ali Amin, Kelly Ong, Azhar Khan, Muhammad Shamim Khan, Kamran Ahmed, Prokar Dasgupta
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 17(4): 1207. CrossRef
Robotic training for medical students: feasibility of a pilot simulation curriculum
Anya L. Greenberg, Shareef M. Syed, Adnan Alseidi, Patricia S. O’Sullivan, Hueylan Chern
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 17(3): 1029. CrossRef
Can video games enhance surgical skills acquisition for medical students? A systematic review
Arnav Gupta, Bishoy Lawendy, Mitchell G. Goldenberg, Ethan Grober, Jason Y. Lee, Nathan Perlis
Surgery.2021; 169(4): 821. CrossRef
Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes
Charles C. Vining, Kinga B. Skowron, Melissa E. Hogg
Updates in Surgery.2021; 73(3): 799. CrossRef
Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery for Endometrial and Cervical Cancer
C. Uwins, H. Patel, G. Prakash Bhandoria, S. Butler-Manuel, A. Tailor, P. Ellis, J. Chatterjee
Clinical Oncology.2021; 33(9): e372. CrossRef
Robotic and Endoscopic Approaches to Head and Neck Surgery
Andrew J. Holcomb, Jeremy D. Richmon
Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America.2021; 35(5): 875. CrossRef
The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review
Julie Flynn, José Tomás Larach, Joseph C. H. Kong, Peadar S. Waters, Satish K. Warrier, Alexander Heriot
Colorectal Disease.2021; 23(11): 2806. CrossRef
Robotics vs Laparoscopy—Are They Truly Rivals?
Natalie Liu, Jacob A. Greenberg
JAMA Surgery.2020; 155(5): 388. CrossRef
Robotic radical hysterectomy for stage 1B1 cervical cancer: A case series of survival outcomes from a leading UK cancer centre
Hersha Patel, Kavitha Madhuri, Thomas Rockell, Rugaia Montaser, Patricia Ellis, Jayanta Chatterjee, Simon Butler‐Manuel, Anil Tailor
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
A multi-modal approach to cognitive training and assistance in minimally invasive surgery
Tina Vajsbaher, Tim Ziemer, Holger Schultheis
Cognitive Systems Research.2020; 64: 57. CrossRef
Systematic review and meta‐analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy
Daniel J. Wong, Michelle J. Wong, Gi Hong Choi, Yao Ming Wu, Paul B. Lai, Brian K. P. Goh
ANZ Journal of Surgery.2019; 89(3): 165. CrossRef
Objective assessment of robotic suturing skills with a new computerized system: A step forward in the training of robotic surgeons
Caleb Busch, Ryu Nakadate, Munenori Uemura, Satoshi Obata, Takahiro Jimbo, Makoto Hashizume
Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery.2019; 12(4): 388. CrossRef
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center
Mike Fruscione, Ryan Pickens, Erin H. Baker, Allyson Cochran, Adeel Khan, Lee Ocuin, David A. Iannitti, Dionisios Vrochides, John B. Martinie
HPB.2019; 21(7): 906. CrossRef
Soft Robotics in Minimally Invasive Surgery
Mark Runciman, Ara Darzi, George P. Mylonas
Soft Robotics.2019; 6(4): 423. CrossRef
Is the Caribbean ready for robotics?
Jorge Rabaza
International Journal of Surgery.2019; 72: 3. CrossRef
Robot-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe but costly approach: A national database review
Bhavani Pokala, Laura Flores, Priscila R. Armijo, Vishal Kothari, Dmitry Oleynikov
The American Journal of Surgery.2019; 218(6): 1213. CrossRef
Does Previous Laparoscopic Experience Influence Basic Robotic Surgical Skills?
Marcelo Pimentel, Renan Desimon Cabral, Márcio Machado Costa, Brasil Silva Neto, Leandro Totti Cavazzola
Journal of Surgical Education.2018; 75(4): 1075. CrossRef
Visuospatial abilities and fine motor experiences influence acquisition and maintenance of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) task performance
Cuan M. Harrington, Patrick Dicker, Oscar Traynor, Dara O. Kavanagh
Surgical Endoscopy.2018; 32(11): 4639. CrossRef
Distraction and proficiency in laparoscopy: 2D versus robotic console 3D immersion
Steven Kim, Audriene May, Heidi Ryan, Adnan Mohsin, Shawn Tsuda
Surgical Endoscopy.2017; 31(11): 4625. CrossRef
Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic repair of small-sized ventral hernias
Y. Julia Chen, Desmond Huynh, Scott Nguyen, Edward Chin, Celia Divino, Linda Zhang
Surgical Endoscopy.2017; 31(3): 1275. CrossRef
3D straight-stick laparoscopy versus 3D robotics for task performance in novice surgeons: a randomised crossover trial
Fevzi Shakir, Haider Jan, Andrew Kent
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(12): 5380. CrossRef
Da Vinci© Skills Simulator™: is an early selection of talented console surgeons possible?
Mark Meier, Kevin Horton, Hubert John
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2016; 10(4): 289. CrossRef
Comparison of the learning curves and frustration level in performing laparoscopic and robotic training skills by experts and novices
Carlo C. Passerotti, Felipe Franco, Julio C. C. Bissoli, Bruno Tiseo, Caio M. Oliveira, Carlos A. O. Buchalla, Gustavo N. C. Inoue, Arzu Sencan, Aydin Sencan, Rogerio Ruscitto do Pardo, Hiep T. Nguyen
International Urology and Nephrology.2015; 47(7): 1075. CrossRef

Initial Clinical Experience with Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Rectal Cancer: Ju-A Park, Gyu-Seog Choi, Jun Seok Park, Soo Yeun Park; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2012;28(5):265-270. Published online October 31, 2012; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2012.28.5.265

6,181 View
65 Download
37 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

This study was conducted to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of robotic extended lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLD) in patients with advanced low rectal cancer.

Methods

A review of a prospectively-collected database at Kyungpook National University Medical Center from January 2011 to November revealed a series of 8 consecutive robotic LPLD cases with a preoperative diagnosis of lateral node metastasis. Data regarding patient demographics, operating time, perioperative blood loss, surgical morbidity, lateral lymph node status, and functional outcome were analyzed.

Results

In all eight patients, the procedures were completed without conversion to open surgery. The mean operative time of extended pelvic node dissection was 38 minutes (range, 20 to 51 minutes), the mean number of lateral lymph nodes harvested was 4.1 (range, 1 to 13), and 3 patients (38%) were found to have lymph node metastases. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 0% and 25%, respectively, but, there was no LPLD-related morbidity. The mean hospital stay was 7.5 days (range, 5 to 12 days).

Conclusion

Robotic LPLD is safe and feasible, with the advantage of being a minimally invasive approach. Further large-scale studies comparing robotic and conventional surgery with long-term follow-up evaluation are needed to confirm these findings.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Learning curve analysis for prophylactic bilateral robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study
T. Sueda, M. Yasui, J. Nishimura, Y. Kagawa, M. Kitakaze, R. Mori, C. Matsuda, Y. Ushimaru, T. Sugase, Y. Mukai, H. Komatsu, Y. Yanagimoto, T. Kanemura, K. Yamamoto, H. Wada, K. Goto, H. Miyata, M. Ohue
Techniques in Coloproctology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic lateral pelvic wall lymph node dissection following robotic‐assisted abdominoperineal resection—A video vignette
Tarek A. Awad, Eslam Hassan, Safa Baqar, Hugh Mackenzie, Sebastian Smolarek
Colorectal Disease.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Lower Rectal Cancer
Wataru Sakamoto, Satoshi Fukai, Takahiro Sato, Misato Ito, Takuro Matsumoto, Mai Ashizawa, Shun Chida, Hisashi Onozawa, Hirokazu Okayama, Hisahito Endo, Motonobu Saito, Zenichiro Saze, Tomoyuki Momma, Koji Kono
FUKUSHIMA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE.2025; 71(2): 97. CrossRef
Short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer
Daichi Kitaguchi, Tsuyoshi Enomoto, Kinji Furuya, Shuntaro Tsukamoto, Tatsuya Oda
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Research progress in lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer
Miao-Miao Dong, Zheng-peng Qian, Ji-Yong Lu, Jing-Jing Li, Yao-Chun lv, Shi-Yun Xu, Bin-Bin Du, De-Wang Wu
Frontiers in Oncology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mohamed Ali Chaouch, Mohammad Iqbal Hussain, Adriano Carneiro da Costa, Alessandro Mazzotta, Bassem Krimi, Amine Gouader, Eddy Cotte, Jim Khan, Hani Oweira, Tsutomu Kumamoto
PLOS ONE.2024; 19(5): e0304031. CrossRef
The role of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in advanced rectal cancer: a review of current evidence and outcomes
Gyu-Seog Choi, Hye Jin Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(4): 363. CrossRef
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted extended mesorectal excision: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review of perioperative and long-term outcomes
Ahmed Abdelsamad, Mohammed Khaled Mohammed, Aya Sayed Ahmed Said Serour, Ibrahim Khalil, Zeyad M. Wesh, Laila Rashidi, Mike Ralf Langenbach, Florian Gebauer, Khaled Ashraf Mohamed
Surgical Endoscopy.2024; 38(11): 6464. CrossRef
Short-term outcomes of 47 selective laparoscopic lymph node dissection for rectal cancer: A retrospective study
Xiajuan Xue, Shuijie Lin, Qunzhang Zeng, Yincong Guo
Medicine.2024; 103(43): e39684. CrossRef
Robot-assisted lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with advanced rectal cancer: a single-center experience of 65 cases
Eon Bin Kim, Yong Sik Yoon, Min Hyun Kim, Young Il Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Chan Wook Kim, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Chang Sik Yu, Jin Cheon Kim
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2023; 17(4): 1697. CrossRef
Robotic pelvic side‐wall dissection and en‐bloc excision for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer: outcomes on feasibility and safety
Naradha Lokuhetty, José Tomás Larach, Amrish K. S. Rajkomar, Helen Mohan, Peadar S. Waters, Alexander G. Heriot, Satish K. Warrier
ANZ Journal of Surgery.2022; 92(9): 2185. CrossRef
Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms
Se-Jin Baek, Guglielmo Niccolò Piozzi, Seon-Hahn Kim
Surgical Oncology.2022; 43: 101786. CrossRef
Standardized Step-by-step Technique Using Surgical Landmarks in Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection
Jung Hoon Bae, Wooree Koh, Hyun Ho Kim, Yoon Suk Lee
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(1): 58. CrossRef
Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms
Se-Jin Baek, Guglielmo Niccolò Piozzi, Seon-Hahn Kim
Surgical Oncology.2021; 37: 101559. CrossRef
Long-term clinical outcomes of total mesorectal excision and selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced low rectal cancer: a comparative study of a robotic versus laparoscopic approach
S. H. Song, G.-S. Choi, H. J. Kim, J. S. Park, S. Y. Park, S.-M. Lee, J. A. Choi, H. A. Seok
Techniques in Coloproctology.2021; 25(4): 413. CrossRef
Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience and Literature Review
Min Chul Kim, Jae Hwan Oh
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(6): 382. CrossRef
Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives
Jong Lyul Lee, Hassan A. Alsaleem, Jin Cheon Kim
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2020; 98(1): 31. CrossRef
Laparoscopic and robotic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer
Ryota Nakanishi, Tomohiro Yamaguchi, Takashi Akiyoshi, Toshiya Nagasaki, Satoshi Nagayama, Toshiki Mukai, Masashi Ueno, Yosuke Fukunaga, Tsuyoshi Konishi
Surgery Today.2020; 50(3): 209. 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
Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of locally advanced low rectal cancer: Summary of the current evidence
Mootaz Elhusseini, Emad H. Aly
Surgical Oncology.2020; 35: 418. CrossRef
Radiation Therapy Dose Escalation to Clinically Involved Pelvic Sidewall Lymph Nodes in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Pehr E. Hartvigson, Smith Apisarnthanarax, Stephanie Schaub, Stacey Cohen, Greta Bernier, Wui-Jin Koh, Edward Y. Kim
Advances in Radiation Oncology.2019; 4(3): 478. CrossRef
Robotic rectal surgery in Korea: Analysis of a nationwide registry
Se‐Jin Baek, Jung‐Myun Kwak, Jin Kim, Seon‐Hahn Kim, Sungsoo Park
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
Selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection: a comparative study of the robotic versus laparoscopic approach
Hye Jin Kim, Gyu-Seog Choi, Jun Seok Park, Soo Yeun Park, Hee Jae Lee, In Taek Woo, In Kyu Park
Surgical Endoscopy.2018; 32(5): 2466. CrossRef
Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for locally advanced low rectal cancer
Tomohiro Yamaguchi, Yusuke Kinugasa, Akio Shiomi, Hiroyasu Kagawa, Yushi Yamakawa, Akinobu Furutani, Shoichi Manabe, Yusuke Yamaoka, Hitoshi Hino
Surgical Endoscopy.2018; 32(11): 4498. CrossRef
Learning Curve of Robotic Rectal Surgery With Lateral Lymph Node Dissection: Cumulative Sum and Multiple Regression Analyses
Kazushige Kawai, Keisuke Hata, Toshiaki Tanaka, Takeshi Nishikawa, Kensuke Otani, Koji Murono, Kazuhito Sasaki, Manabu Kaneko, Shigenobu Emoto, Hiroaki Nozawa
Journal of Surgical Education.2018; 75(6): 1598. 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
Optimal treatment strategies for clinically suspicious lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer
Hye Jin Kim, Gyu-Seog Choi, Jun Seok Park, Soo Yeun Park, Seung Hyun Cho, Soo Jung Lee, Byung Woog Kang, Jong Gwang Kim
Oncotarget.2017; 8(59): 100724. CrossRef
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer
Tomohiro Yamaguchi, Yusuke Kinugasa, Akio Shiomi, Hiroyuki Tomioka, Hiroyasu Kagawa
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(2): 721. CrossRef
Technical feasibility of laparoscopic extended surgery beyond total mesorectal excision for primary or recurrent rectal cancer
Takashi Akiyoshi
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 22(2): 718. CrossRef
Surgical management of extra-regional lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer
Mahdi H. Albandar, Min Soo Cho, Sung Uk Bae, Nam Kyu Kim
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy.2016; 16(5): 503. CrossRef
Robotic-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for lower rectal cancer: short-term outcomes in 50 consecutive patients
Hiroyasu Kagawa, Yusuke Kinugasa, Akio Shiomi, Tomohiro Yamaguchi, Syunsuke Tsukamoto, Hiroyuki Tomioka, Yushi Yamakawa, Sumito Sato
Surgical Endoscopy.2015; 29(4): 995. CrossRef
Minimally Invasive Techniques for an Intersphincteric Resection and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer
Jung Wook Huh
Annals of Coloproctology.2014; 30(4): 163. CrossRef
Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer
Matthew Crapko, James Fleshman
Annals of Surgical Oncology.2014; 21(1): 173. 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
Robotics in general surgery: An evidence‐based review
Se‐Jin Baek, Seon‐Hahn Kim
Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery.2014; 7(2): 117. CrossRef
Robotic-Assisted Abdominoperineal Resection With Obturator Lymph Node Dissection
Kevin R. Kasten, Jean V. Joseph, Todd D. Francone
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2014; 57(11): 1329. 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

Single-incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Appendiceal Mucoceles: Safety and Feasibility in a Series of 16 Consecutive Cases: Ki Bum Park, Jun Seok Park, Gyu-Seog Choi, Hye Jin Kim, Soo Yeun Park, Jong Pil Ryuk, Won Ho Choi, You Seok Jang; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2011;27(6):287-292. Published online December 31, 2011; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2011.27.6.287

7,093 View
34 Download
16 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, safety, and oncological outcomes of transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery in patients with an uncomplicated appendiceal mucocele.

Methods

A review of a prospectively collected database at the Kyungpook National University Hospital from January 2006 to September 2010 revealed that a series of 16 consecutive patients underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for an appendiceal mucocele. Data regarding patient demographics, operating time, conversion, surgical morbidity, lateral lymph node status, and mid-term oncologic result were analyzed.

Results

The reported series consisted of 7 women (50%) and 9 men with a mean age of 61.6 years (range, 41 to 88 years). The mean operative time was 66.8 minutes (range, 33 to 150 minutes). Perioperative mortality and morbidity were 0% and 6.2%, respectively. Recovery after the procedure was rapid, and the mean hospital stay was 6.8 days (range, 3 to 22 days). Pathology revealed 12 lesions compatible with a mucinous cystadenoma and four others compatible with benign cystic tumors. All surgical margins were clear. In one case, an extra port had to be placed, and another case required conversion from SILS to a standard open laparotomy immediately after identification of the tumor because of a micro-perforation with focal mucin collection. With a median follow-up of 28.7 months, no re-admission or tumor recurrence, such as pseudomyxoma peritonei, was noted in 14 patients.

Conclusion

A single-port laparoscopic mucocelectomy should be safe and feasible and has the advantage of being a minimally invasive approach. Prospective controlled studies comparing SILS and conventional open surgery, with long-term follow-up evaluation, are needed to confirm the author's initial experience.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Appendiceal Neoplasms
Wolfgang B. Gaertner, Shaun R. Brown, Michael Deutsch, Mehraneh D. Jafari, Mukta K. Krane, Vlad V. Simianu, Michael A. Valente, Amy L. Lightner, Daniel L. Feingold, Ian M. Paquette
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2025; 68(7): 815. CrossRef
Appendiceal Mucocele - A Review of Literature with a Case Report
Berislav Vekic, Rade Markovic, Aleksandar Cvetkovic, Bojan Stojanovic, Marko Spasic, Nenad Markovic, Mladen Pavlovic, Dusica Petrovic, Bojan Milosevic, Jasna Jevdjic, Maja Vulovic, Dalibor Jovanovic, Slobodanka Mitrovic
Experimental and Applied Biomedical Research (EABR).2024; 25(3): 289. CrossRef
Single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal mucocele: a series of 116 patients
Ho Seung Kim, Han-Gil Kim, Seung Yoon Yang, Yoon Dae Han, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim, Min Soo Cho
Surgical Endoscopy.2022; 36(1): 244. CrossRef
Mucinous appendiceal neoplasm: A case report
Alexandru Chirca, Lucian Negreanu, Andreea Iliesiu, Radu Costea
World Journal of Clinical Cases.2021; 9(7): 1728. CrossRef
Actinomycosis of the Appendix Mimicking Cecal Tumor Treated by Single-Port Laparoscopic Approach
In Soo Cho, Sung Uk Bae, Hye Ra Jung, Kyung Sik Park, Woon Kyung Jeong, Seong Kyu Baek
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(2): 125. CrossRef
Surgical Outcomes of Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Compared With Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm
In Jun Yang, Minseol Seo, Heung-Kwon Oh, Jeehye Lee, Jung Wook Suh, Duck-Woo Kim, Sung-Bum Kang
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(4): 239. CrossRef
The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Appendiceal Neoplasms
Sean C. Glasgow, Wolfgang Gaertner, David Stewart, Jennifer Davids, Karim Alavi, Ian M. Paquette, Scott R. Steele, Daniel L. Feingold
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2019; 62(12): 1425. CrossRef
Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal mucocele: a multicenter study
Tae Kyu Kim, Jun Ho Park, Jeong Yeon Kim, Byung Chun Kim, Byung Mo Kang, Soo Kee Min, Jong Wan Kim
Surgical Endoscopy.2018; 32(11): 4408. CrossRef
Laparoscopic ileocecal resection can be applied for appendiceal cancer with an ileal fistula: A case report
Junko Mukohyama, Yasuo Sumi, Kiyonori Kanemitsu, Hiroshi Hasegawa, Masashi Yamamoto, Shingo Kanaji, Yoshiko Matsuda, Kimihiro Yamashita, Takeru Matsuda, Taro Oshikiri, Tetsu Nakamura, Satoshi Suzuki, Yoshihiro Kakeji
International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2018; 52: 120. CrossRef
Minimally invasive appendectomy for resection of appendiceal mucocele: Case series and review of the literature
Sonia T. Orcutt, Daniel A. Anaya, Mokenge Malafa
International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2017; 37: 13. CrossRef
Diagnosis and Treatment of Mucinous Appendiceal Neoplasm Presented as Acute Appendicitis
Ioannis Kehagias, Apollon Zygomalas, Georgios Markopoulos, Thanasis Papandreou, Pantelis Kraniotis
Case Reports in Oncological Medicine.2016; 2016: 1. CrossRef
Recommendations in the management of epithelial appendiceal neoplasms and peritoneal dissemination from mucinous tumours (pseudomyxoma peritonei)
P. Barrios, F. Losa, S. Gonzalez-Moreno, A. Rojo, A. Gómez-Portilla, P. Bretcha-Boix, I. Ramos, J. Torres-Melero, R. Salazar, M. Benavides, T. Massuti, E. Aranda
Clinical and Translational Oncology.2016; 18(5): 437. CrossRef
Laparoscopic approach to mucocele of appendiceal mucinous cystadenoma: feasibility and short-term outcomes in 24 consecutive cases
Ki-Jae Park, Hong-Jo Choi, Sung-Heun Kim
Surgical Endoscopy.2015; 29(11): 3179. CrossRef
Cholecystectomy: evolution of laparoscopic approach
I. V. Mikhin, Yu. V. Kuhktenko, M. B. Doronin
Endoskopicheskaya khirurgiya.2015; 21(1): 42. CrossRef
IV. Les recommandations

Journal de Chirurgie Viscérale.2014; 151(6): S15. CrossRef
Distinguishing between acute appendicitis and appendiceal mucocele: is this possible preoperatively?
B. Saylam, C. E. Güldoğan, F. Coşkun, V. Vural, B. Çomçalı, M. Tez
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery.2013; 39(5): 523. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search