Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
31 "Laparoscopic surgery"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles
Display
Original Articles
Minimally invasive surgery
Preoperative localization of potentially invisible colonic lesions on the laparoscopic operation field: using autologous blood tattooing
Ji Yeon Mun, Hyunjoon An, Ri Na Yoo, Hyeon-Min Cho, Bong-Hyeon Kye
Ann Coloproctol. 2024;40(3):225-233.   Published online June 19, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2023.00059.0008
  • 4,308 View
  • 198 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 1 Citations
Graphical AbstractGraphical Abstract AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose
Preoperative colonoscopic (POC) localization is recommended for patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic colectomy for early colon cancer. Among the various localization method, POC tattooing localization has been widely used. Several dyes have been used for tattooing, but dye has disadvantages, including foreign body reactions. For this reason, we have used autologous blood tattooing for POC localization. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the autologous blood tattooing method.
Methods
This study included patients who required POC localization of the colonic neoplasm among the patients who were scheduled for elective colon resection. The indication for localization was early colon cancer (clinically T1 or T2) or colonic neoplasms that could not be resected endoscopically. POC autologous blood tattooing was performed after saline injection, and 2 hemoclips were applied.
Results
A total of 45 patients who underwent autologous blood tattooing and laparoscopic colectomy were included in this study. All POC localization sites were visible in the laparoscopic view. POC localization sites showed almost perfect agreement with intraoperative surgical findings. There were no complications like bowel perforation, peritonitis, hemoperitoneum, and mesenteric hematoma.
Conclusion
Autologous blood is a safe and effective agent for localizing materials that can replace previous dyes. However, a large prospective case-control study is required for the routine application of this procedure in early colon cancer or colonic neoplasms.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Meeting report on the 8th Asian Science Editors’ Conference and Workshop 2024
    Eun Jung Park
    Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 66.     CrossRef
Benign bowel disease
Short-term outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for deep infiltrative endometriosis with rectal involvement: a single-center experience of 168 cases
Sara Gortázar de las Casas, Emanuela Spagnolo, Salomone Di Saverio, Mario Álvarez-Gallego, Ana López Carrasco, María Carbonell López, Sergio Torres Cobos, Constantino Fondevila Campo, Alicia Hernández Gutiérrez, Isabel Pascual Miguelañez
Ann Coloproctol. 2023;39(3):216-222.   Published online March 7, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2021.00829.0118
  • 5,667 View
  • 162 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 2 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose
The surgical management of deep infiltrative endometriosis (DE) involving the rectum remains a challenge. The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes from a single tertiary center over a decade with an emphasis on the role of a protective loop ileostomy (PI).
Methods
A retrospective review of outcomes for 168 patients managed between 2008 and 2018 is presented including 57 rectal shaves, 23 discoid excisions, and 88 segmental rectal resections.
Results
The nodule size (mean±standard deviation) in the segmental resection group was 32.7±11.2 mm, 23.4±10.5 mm for discoid excision, and 18.8±6.0 mm for rectal shaves. A PI was performed in 19 elective cases (11.3%) usually for an ultra-low anastomosis <5 cm from the anal verge. All Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV complications occurred after segmental resections and included 5 anastomotic leaks, 6 rectovaginal fistulas, 2 ureteric fistulas, and 1 ureteric stenosis. Of 26 stomas (15.5%), there were 19 PIs, 3 secondary ileostomies (after complications), and 4 end colostomies. The median time to PI closure was 5.8 months (range, 0.4–16.7 months) in uncomplicated disease compared with 9.2 months (range, 4.7–18.4 months) when initial postoperative complications were recorded (P=0.019). Only 1 patient with a recurrent rectovaginal fistula had a permanent colostomy.
Conclusion
In patients with DE and rectal involvement a PI is selectively used for low anastomoses and complex pelvic reconstructions. Protective stomas and those used in the definitive management of a major postoperative complication can usually be reversed.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Surgeons' workload assessment during indocyanine-assisted deep endometriosis surgery using the surgery task load index: The impact of the learning curve
    Emanuela Spagnolo, Ignacio Cristóbal Quevedo, Sara Gortázar de las Casas, Ana López Carrasco, Maria Carbonell López, Isabel Pascual Migueláñez, Alicia Hernández Gutiérrez
    Frontiers in Surgery.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Quality of Life in Women after Deep Endometriosis Surgery: Comparison with Spanish Standardized Values
    Alicia Hernández, Elena Muñoz, David Ramiro-Cortijo, Emanuela Spagnolo, Ana Lopez, Angela Sanz, Cristina Redondo, Patricia Salas, Ignacio Cristobal
    Journal of Clinical Medicine.2022; 11(20): 6192.     CrossRef
Benign GI diease,Surgical technique
Laparoscopic Hartmann’s Reversal: Application of a Single-Port Approach Through the Colostomy Site
Byung Mo Kang, Chang Woo Kim, Suk-Hwan Lee
Ann Coloproctol. 2021;37(1):29-34.   Published online December 4, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2020.09.21
  • 7,288 View
  • 109 Download
  • 4 Web of Science
  • 6 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose
Recently, laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s colostomy was performed with favorable outcomes by many surgeons. We partially applied the concepts of single-port laparoscopic procedure through the colostomy site to remove intraperitoneal adhesion during initial step of the laparoscopic Hartmann’s reversal. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s colostomy with the application of single-port laparoscopic techniques through the colostomy site.
Methods
From October 2008 to November 2018, the laparoscopic Hartmann’s reversal was attempted in 20 patients. After colostomy take-downs, the single-port device was installed at the colostomy site and the single-port laparoscopic procedure was performed to remove intraperitoneal adhesions to provide space for additional trocars. After additional trocars were inserted, the descending colon and rectal stump were mobilized, and the colorectal anastomosis was completed. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and analyzed the data to identify the perioperative complication rates as the primary outcome.
Results
Of the 20 patients, 3 patients (15.0%) had open conversions due to severe adhesions. Intraoperative small bowel injuries occurred in 2 patients (10.0%) and these were repaired through the colostomy site. Postoperative complications developed in 4 patients (20.0%) and were managed with medical treatments or wound closures under local anesthesia.
Conclusion
The single-port laparoscopic procedure through the colostomy site is sufficiently safe in order to complete the Hartmann’s reversal. We recommend that the colostomy site should be used as the access route into the abdominal cavity for the Hartmann’s reversal.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Single‐port laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure through the colostomy site: technical aspects and early postoperative outcomes
    Ahmet Akmercan, Tayfun Akmercan, Tevfik Kıvılcım Uprak
    ANZ Journal of Surgery.2025; 95(1-2): 151.     CrossRef
  • Handmade Single-Port Laparoscopic Hartmann’s Stoma Reversal Procedure
    Ahmet Akmercan, Ali Hajali, Tevfik Kıvılcım Uprak
    Videoscopy.2025; 35(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Impact of single-port laparoscopic approach on scar assessment by patients and observers: a multicenter retrospective study
    Sung Uk Bae, Kyeong Eui Kim, Chang-Woo Kim, Ji-Hoon Kim, Woon Kyung Jeong, Yoon-Suk Lee, Seong Kyu Baek, Suk-Hwan Lee, Jun-Gi Kim
    Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(2): 154.     CrossRef
  • Comparison between liquid skin adhesive and wound closure strip for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a single-center retrospective study in Korea
    Kyeong Eui Kim, Yu Ra Jeon, Sung Uk Bae, Woon Kyung Jeong, Seong Kyu Baek
    Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2024; 27(1): 14.     CrossRef
  • The Latest Results and Future Directions of Research for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in the Field of Colorectal Surgery
    Min Ki Kim
    The Ewha Medical Journal.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Laparoskopische Kontinuitätswiederherstellung nach der Hartmann-Operation
    Andreas Türler, Nicola Cerasani, Haug-Lambert Loriz, Xenia Kemper, Moritz Weckbecker, Maike Derenbach, Anna Krappitz
    coloproctology.2022; 44(1): 35.     CrossRef
Malignant disease, Rectal cancer
First Feasibility Study and Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic-Assisted Anterior Resection in Colorectal Cancer in Malaysia
Henry Chor Lip Tan, Jih Huei Tan, Nur Akmalrudin Nur Dzainuddin, Koon Khee Chan
Ann Coloproctol. 2020;36(2):94-101.   Published online March 16, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2019.05.10
  • 5,413 View
  • 93 Download
  • 5 Web of Science
  • 4 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection (LAAR) for colorectal cancer in a local Asian population.
Methods
This is a retrospective review of all patients with colorectal cancer operated from November 2017 to October 2018. Main variables of interest were demography, type and surgery, length of stay (LOS), and the involvement of proximal and distal doughnut. Postoperative complications were analysed using chi-square or Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney tests.
Results
There were 23 patients with a mean age of 62.5 ± 12.2 years. The mean time from diagnosis to surgery was 97.1 ± 154.84 days. There were 12 patients in the LAAR group and 11 in the open anterior resection (OAR) group. Duration of surgery was shorter in OAR (129.58 ± 51.38 minutes) compared to LAAR (147.91 ± 39.37 minutes). Mean LOS was shorter in the LAAR group with 5±1.5 days compared to the OAR group of 7.42 ± 4.25 days. However, there was no significant P-value for both duration of surgery (P = 0.322) or LOS (P = 0.87). A total of 3 complications were recorded after OAR and 2 after LAAR. Both groups had clear proximal and distal margins with 16 (12–18.5) harvested lymph nodes in LAAR and 18 (16–22) in OAR, which were equal (P = 0.155).
Conclusion
This study reports a shorter LOS in the minimally invasive group of 2 days with similar oncologic resection outcomes. This shows that LAAR is feasible in Malaysia and has potential outcome benefits.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Curative Colorectal Resections from an Evolving Low-Volume Cancer Center in a Tier-2 City in India
    Vishnu S. Menon, Amita Sekhar Padhy, Rigved Nittala, Mounika Basani, Sidaksingh R. Arora
    Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Perforated caecal carcinoma within a strangulated inguinal hernia
    Wick Champ Lai, Mogaraj Sellapan, Novinth Kumar Raja Ram, Henry Tan Chor Lip
    ANZ Journal of Surgery.2022; 92(6): 1512.     CrossRef
  • Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, and Current Management
    Seung Mi Yeo, Gyung Mo Son
    The Ewha Medical Journal.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Critical adjustments and trauma surgery trends in adaptation to COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia
    Henry Tan Chor Lip, Tan Jih Huei, Yuzaidi Mohamad, Rizal Imran Alwi, Tuan Nur' Azmah Tuan Mat
    Chinese Journal of Traumatology.2020; 23(4): 207.     CrossRef
Malignant disease, Rectal cancer,Prognosis and adjuvant therapy
Effect of Age on Laparoscopic Surgery and Postoperative Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients With Colorectal Cancer
Hyun Hee Kim, Myong Hoon Ihn, Yun Hee Lee, Jihyoun Lee, Sangchul Yun, Sung Woo Cho
Ann Coloproctol. 2020;36(4):229-242.   Published online January 31, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2019.10.03
  • 5,581 View
  • 104 Download
  • 11 Web of Science
  • 12 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose
We aimed to evaluate the postoperative complications of laparoscopic colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery and the adverse events of postoperative chemotherapy in elderly patients compared to younger patients and to identify the factors influencing the termination of postoperative chemotherapy.
Methods
Between June 2015 and May 2018, 188 patients with CRC underwent laparoscopic surgery with curative intent. Patients aged ≥ 70 were defined as elderly. Postoperative complications and adverse events of chemotherapy were assessed by using the Clavien-Dindo classification and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, respectively. The clinicopathological factors were analyzed retrospectively.
Results
Seventy-eight patients were considered elderly with a mean age of 77.5 ± 5.5 years. Overall postoperative complications occurred in 68 patients (36.2%). Age and primary tumor location were independent predictors of overall postoperative complications. Smoking history was the only independent predictor of major postoperative complications. Of 113 patients who were recommended postoperative chemotherapy, 90 patients (79.6%) received postoperative chemotherapy. Overall adverse events occurred in 40 patients (44.4%). The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification and chemotherapy regimen were significantly associated with overall adverse events. The chemotherapy regimen was the only factor significantly associated with severe adverse events. Of 90 patients, postoperative chemotherapy could not be completed in 11 (12.2%). Age was the only factor significantly associated with stopping postoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.003).
Conclusion
This study shows that laparoscopic CRC surgery and postoperative chemotherapy were feasible in elderly patients. Further efforts are needed to ensure that elderly patients have the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding postoperative chemotherapy.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Outcome of robotic colon surgery in older patients with colon cancer
    Ellen Van Eetvelde, Manu Verweirder, Lore Decoster, Daniel Jacobs-Tulleneers-Thevissen
    Journal of Geriatric Oncology.2025; 16(3): 102205.     CrossRef
  • Survival Benefits of Postoperative Chemotherapy in Patients With Colorectal Mucinous Adenocarcinoma: An Analysis Utilizing Propensity Score Matching From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database
    Jun Rong, Wensheng Deng
    The American Surgeon™.2024; 90(11): 2969.     CrossRef
  • Nutritional Status Indicators Predict Tolerability to Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
    Shinya Abe, Hiroaki Nozawa, Kazuhito Sasaki, Koji Murono, Shigenobu Emoto, Yuichiro Yokoyama, Hiroyuki Matsuzaki, Yuzo Nagai, Takahide Shinagawa, Hirofumi Sonoda, Soichiro Ishihara
    Digestion.2024; 105(5): 345.     CrossRef
  • Abdominal Aortic Calcification as a Predictor of Incomplete Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Stage III Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study
    Kouki Imaoka, Manabu Shimomura, Hiroshi Okuda, Takuya Yano, Shintaro Akabane, Masahiro Ohira, Yuki Imaoka, Tetsuya Mochizuki, Minoru Hattori, Hideki Ohdan
    Cureus.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Effect of continuous wound infiltration on patients using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for pain management after reduced-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery
    Hyeon Deok Choi, Sung Uk Bae
    Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(6): 564.     CrossRef
  • Differences in prognosis and underuse of adjuvant chemotherapy between elderly and non‐elderly patients in stage III colorectal cancer
    Takuya Shiraishi, Hiroomi Ogawa, Ikuma Shioi, Naoya Ozawa, Katsuya Osone, Takuhisa Okada, Makoto Sohda, Ken Shirabe, Hiroshi Saeki
    Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery.2023; 7(1): 91.     CrossRef
  • Clinical outcomes and cost comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients over 80 years
    Aik Yong Chok, Ivan En-Howe Tan, Yun Zhao, Madeline Yen Min Chee, Hui Lionel Raphael Chen, Kwok Ann Ang, Marianne Kit Har Au, Emile John Kwong Wei Tan
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Association between social background and implementation of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for older patients undergoing curative resection of colorectal cancers, sub-analysis of the HiSCO-04 study
    Tomoaki Bekki, Manabu Shimomura, Yasufumi Saito, Masahiro Nakahara, Tomohiro Adachi, Satoshi Ikeda, Yosuke Shimizu, Masatoshi Kochi, Yasuyo Ishizaki, Masanori Yoshimitsu, Yuji Takakura, Wataru Shimizu, Daisuke Sumitani, Shinya Kodama, Masahiko Fujimori, M
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Operative and Survival Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Elderly and Very Elderly Patients: A Study in a Tertiary Hospital in South Korea
    Hugo Cuellar-Gomez, Siti Mayuha Rusli, María Esther Ocharan-Hernández, Tae-Hoon Lee, Guglielmo Niccolò Piozzi, Seon-Hahn Kim, Cruz Vargas-De-León, Yazhou He
    Journal of Oncology.2022; 2022: 1.     CrossRef
  • Multidisciplinary treatment strategy for early colon cancer
    Gyung Mo Son, Su Bum Park, Tae Un Kim, Byung-Soo Park, In Young Lee, Joo-Young Na, Dong Hoon Shin, Sang Bo Oh, Sung Hwan Cho, Hyun Sung Kim, Hyung Wook Kim
    Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2022; 65(9): 558.     CrossRef
  • Multidisciplinary Treatment Strategy for Early Colon Cancer: A Review-An English Version
    Gyung Mo Son, Su Bum Park, Tae Un Kim, Byung-Soo Park, In Young Lee, Joo-Young Na, Dong Hoon Shin, Sang Bo Oh, Sung Hwan Cho, Hyun Sung Kim, Hyung Wook Kim
    Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2022; 6(4): 203.     CrossRef
  • Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients
    Bengt Glimelius, Erik Osterman
    Cancers.2020; 12(8): 2289.     CrossRef
Impact of Patient’s Pain and Fatigue on Decision of Discharge After Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
Gyeora Lee, Jun-Suh Lee, Ji Hoon Kim, Duk Yeon Hwang, Yoon-Suk Lee
Ann Coloproctol. 2019;35(4):209-215.   Published online August 31, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2018.11.29
  • 5,212 View
  • 120 Download
  • 6 Web of Science
  • 5 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose
Hospital stays after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer tend to be much shorter than those after conventional open surgery. Many factors, including surgical outcomes and complications, are associated with patient discharge planning. However, few studies have analyzed the impact of patient subjective discomfort (including pain and fatigue) on the decision to discharge after surgery. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine how patient pain and fatigue play a role in the decision to discharge after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.
Methods
Between March 2014 and February 2015, we conducted a questionnaire survey of 91 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer to estimate the expectation criteria for discharge and patient subjective discomfort at that time. Patients were divided into the following 2 groups: group A, those who complied with the medical professional’s decision to discharge; and group B, those who refused discharge despite the medical professional’s decision. The participants’ subjective factors were analyzed.
Results
Preoperatively, 78 of 91 patients (85.7%) identified activity level, amount of food (tolerance), and bowel movements as important factors that should be considered in the decision to discharge a patient postoperatively. Postoperatively, 17 patients (18.7%) refused discharge despite a discharge recommendation. Subjective pain and fatigue were significantly different in linear-by-linear association between the group of patients who agreed to be discharge and those who disagreed. Despite this difference, there was no significant difference in mean length of hospital stay between the 2 groups.
Conclusion
A patient’s subjective feelings of pain and fatigue can impact their decision regarding hospital discharge.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Effect of continuous wound infiltration on patients using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for pain management after reduced-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery
    Hyeon Deok Choi, Sung Uk Bae
    Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(6): 564.     CrossRef
  • The Impact of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol in a High-Risk Population Undergoing Colon Cancer Surgery
    Denise L. Wong, Alexis Holland, Mehmet Kocak, Mace Coday, Caroline Brown, Justin J. Monroe, Nathan M. Hinkle, Jeremiah L. Deneve, Evan S. Glazer, David Shibata
    The American Surgeon™.2023; 89(11): 4485.     CrossRef
  • Effectiveness of Aromatherapy on Ameliorating Fatigue in Adults: A Meta-Analysis
    Qiuting Wang, Lin Wei, Yueming Luo, Lijun Lin, Chong Deng, Ping Hu, Lijia Zhu, Yangchen Liu, Meizhen Lin, Azizah Ugusman
    Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.2022; 2022: 1.     CrossRef
  • Reducing hospital stay for colorectal surgery in ERAS setting by means of perioperative patient education of expected day of discharge
    Thaís T. T. Tweed, Carmen Woortman, Stan Tummers, Maikel J. A. M. Bakens, James van Bastelaar, Jan H. M. B. Stoot
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2021; 36(7): 1535.     CrossRef
  • The Impact of Patient’s Pain and Fatigue on the Discharge Decision After Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
    Won Beom Jung
    Annals of Coloproctology.2019; 35(4): 158.     CrossRef
Video
Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Surgery for Patients With Proximal Transverse Colon Cancer With Situs Inversus Totalis: A Case Report
Seung-Seop Yeom, Kyung Hwan Kim, Soo Young Lee, Chang Hyun Kim, Hyeong Rok Kim, Young Jin Kim
Ann Coloproctol. 2018;34(6):322-325.   Published online December 31, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2018.05.29.1
  • 8,501 View
  • 99 Download
  • 5 Web of Science
  • 4 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Situs inversus is a rare hereditary disorder in which various anomalies have been reported with internal rotation abnormalities. This case involved an 85-year-old woman who had been diagnosed with transverse colon cancer and who underwent reduced-port laparoscopic surgery. All intra-abdominal organs were reversed left to right and right to left. The aberrant midcolic artery was identified during surgery. The total surgery time was 170 minutes, and the patient lost 20 mL of blood. The patient was discharged on the 8th postoperative day without complications.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration to treat choledocholithiasis in situs inversus patients: A technical review
    Bo-Ya Chiu, Shu-Hung Chuang, Shih-Chang Chuang, Kung-Kai Kuo
    World Journal of Clinical Cases.2023; 11(9): 1939.     CrossRef
  • Laparoscopic radical resection for situs inversus totalis with colonic splenic flexure carcinoma: A case report
    Zi-Ling Zheng, Shou-Ru Zhang, Hao Sun, Mao-Cai Tang, Jing-Kun Shang
    World Journal of Clinical Cases.2022; 10(16): 5435.     CrossRef
  • MicroRNA-129-3p Inhibits Colorectal Cancer Proliferation
    Lei Kang, Dongmei Guo, Yanhai Dong, Xiaowei Chen, Chao Yuan
    Journal of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering.2022; 12(12): 2413.     CrossRef
  • Technique for Improving the Adoption of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Challenging Cases
    Giorgio Bogani, Francesco Raspagliesi
    Journal of Investigative Surgery.2021; 34(3): 334.     CrossRef
Original Articles
Clinical Outcomes of Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Surgery for Patients With Sigmoid Colon Cancer: Surgery With 1 Surgeon and 1 Camera Operator
Jung Ryul Oh, Sung Chan Park, Sung Sil Park, Beonghoon Sohn, Hyoung Min Oh, Bun Kim, Min Jung Kim, Chang Won Hong, Kyung Su Han, Dae Kyung Sohn, Jae Hwan Oh
Ann Coloproctol. 2018;34(6):292-298.   Published online December 3, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2018.04.06
  • 8,889 View
  • 111 Download
  • 8 Web of Science
  • 5 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose
This study compared the perioperative clinical outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) with those of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for patients with sigmoid colon cancer and investigated the safety and feasibility of RPLS performed by 1 surgeon and 1 camera operator.
Methods
From the beginning of 2010 until the end of 2014, 605 patients underwent a colectomy for sigmoid colon cancer. We compared the characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and pathologic results for the patients who underwent RPLS and for the patients who underwent MPLS. We also compared the clinical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and 3-port laparoscopic surgery.
Results
Of the 115 patients in the RPLS group, 59 underwent SILS and 56 underwent 3-port laparoscopic surgery. The MPLS group included 490 patients. The RPLS group had shorter operating time (137.4 ± 43.2 minutes vs. 155.5 ± 47.9 minutes, P < 0.001) and shorter incision length (5.3 ± 2.2 cm vs. 7.8 ± 1.2 cm, P < 0.001) than the MPLS group. In analyses of SILS and 3-port laparoscopic surgery, the SILS group showed younger age, longer operating time, and shorter incision length than the 3-port surgery group and exhibited a more advanced T stage, more lymphatic invasion, and larger tumor size.
Conclusion
RPLS performed by 1 surgeon and 1 camera operator appears to be a feasible and safe surgical option for the treatment of patients with sigmoid colon cancer, showing comparable clinical outcomes with shorter operation time and shorter incision length than MPLS. SILS can be applied to patients with favorable tumor characteristics.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer
    Zhi-min Liu, Qi-jun Yao, Fengyun Pei, Fang He, Yandong Zhao, Jun Huang
    BMC Cancer.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery
    Mingyi Wu, Hao Wang, Xuehua Zhang, Jiaolong Shi, Xiaoliang Lan, Tingyu Mou, Yanan Wang
    BMC Gastroenterology.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Long-term Oncologic Outcomes of Single-Incision Plus One-Port Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer
    Yasumitsu Hirano, Chikashi Hiranuma, Masakazu Hattori, Kenji Douden
    Indian Journal of Surgery.2021; 83(3): 691.     CrossRef
  • LongTerm Outcomes of Three-Port Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy Versus Five-Port Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy: A Retrospective Study
    Tao Zhang, Yaqi Zhang, Xiaonan Shen, Yi Shi, Xiaopin Ji, Shaodong Wang, Zijia Song, Xiaoqian Jing, Feng Ye, Ren Zhao
    Frontiers in Oncology.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Short‐ And medium‐term outcomes of reduced‐port laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with upper rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study
    Huawen Wu, Zhijian Zheng, Lewei Xu, Yingying Wu, Ziyi Guan, Wenhuan Li, Guofu Chen
    Cancer Medicine.2020; 9(15): 5320.     CrossRef
Preoperative Tattooing Using Indocyanine Green in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery
Sang Jae Lee, Dae Kyung Sohn, Kyung Su Han, Byung Chang Kim, Chang Won Hong, Sung Chan Park, Min Jung Kim, Byung Kwan Park, Jae Hwan Oh
Ann Coloproctol. 2018;34(4):206-211.   Published online July 26, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2017.09.25
  • 9,085 View
  • 189 Download
  • 18 Web of Science
  • 20 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the usefulness of indocyanine green (ICG) as a preoperative marking dye for laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Methods
Between March 2013 and March 2015, 174 patients underwent preoperative colonoscopic tattooing using 1.0 to 1.5 mL of ICG and saline solution before laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Patients’ medical records and operation videos were retrospectively assessed to evaluate the visibility, duration, and adverse effects of tattooing.
Results
The mean age of the patients was 65 years (range, 34–82 years), and 63.2% of the patients were male. The median interval between tattooing and operation was 1.0 day (range, 0–14 days). Tattoos placed within 2 days of surgery were visualized intraoperatively more frequently than those placed at an earlier date (95% vs. 40%, respectively, P < 0.001). For tattoos placed within 2 days before surgery, the visualization rates by tattoo site were 98.6% (134 of 136) from the ascending colon to the sigmoid colon. The visualization rates at the rectosigmoid colon and rectum were 84% (21 of 25) and 81.3% (13 of 16), respectively (P < 0.001). No complications related to preoperative ICG tattooing occurred.
Conclusion
Endoscopic ICG tattooing is more useful for the preoperative localization of colonic lesions than it is for rectal lesions and should be performed within 2 days before laparoscopic surgery.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Enhancing remanent magnetization of injectable hydrogels improves realtime transluminal localization of tumor in hollow soft viscera
    Junnan Gu, Yuxuan Sun, Tianyi Zhang, Zhenxing Jiang, Falong Zou, Denglong Cheng, Wentai Cai, Hao Wen, Shenghe Deng, Jun Wang, Shuang Zhao, Quanliang Cao, Yinghao Cao, Zichun Yang, Liang Li, Jun Ouyang, Kailin Cai
    Bioactive Materials.2026; 55: 410.     CrossRef
  • Accuracy evaluation of preoperative indocyanine green tattooing and intraoperative colonoscopy in determining surgical resection margins for left-sided colorectal cancer: a retrospective study in Korea
    Byung-Soo Park, Sung Hwan Cho, Gyung Mo Son, Hyun Sung Kim, Jin Ook Jang, Dae Gon Ryu, Su Jin Kim, Su Bum Park, Hyung Wook Kim
    Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2025; 28(1): 19.     CrossRef
  • Beyond diagnosis: how advanced imaging technologies are shaping modern surgery
    Taner Shakir, Dominic Atraszkiewicz, Mohamed Hassouna, Tom Pampiglione, Manish Chand
    Artificial Intelligence Surgery.2025; 5(2): 270.     CrossRef
  • Indocyanine Green Tattooing During Colonoscopy as a Guide to Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Literature Review
    Marzia Varanese, Stefano Arcieri, Augusto Lauro, Cristina Panetta, Chiara Eberspacher, Rossella Palma, Domenico Mascagni, Stefano Pontone
    Surgical Innovation.2024; 31(1): 103.     CrossRef
  • Indocyanine-coated fluorescent clips for localization of gastrointestinal tumors
    Kyonglin Park, Hongrae Kim, Hyoung-Jun Kim, Yongdoo Choi, Sung-Jae Park, Jae-Suk Park, Min-Kyu Choi, Dae Kyung Sohn
    Journal of Innovative Medical Technology.2024; 2(1): 20.     CrossRef
  • Preoperative localization of potentially invisible colonic lesions on the laparoscopic operation field: using autologous blood tattooing
    Ji Yeon Mun, Hyunjoon An, Ri Na Yoo, Hyeon-Min Cho, Bong-Hyeon Kye
    Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(3): 225.     CrossRef
  • A Green Lantern for the Surgeon: A Review on the Use of Indocyanine Green (ICG) in Minimally Invasive Surgery
    Pietro Fransvea, Michelangelo Miccini, Fabio Rondelli, Giuseppe Brisinda, Alessandro Costa, Giovanni Maria Garbarino, Gianluca Costa
    Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(16): 4895.     CrossRef
  • Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Guided Surgery in Colorectal Surgery
    Zoe Garoufalia, Steven D. Wexner
    Journal of Clinical Medicine.2023; 12(2): 494.     CrossRef
  • Preoperative tumor marking with indocyanine green (ICG) prior to minimally invasive colorectal cancer: a systematic review of current literature
    Michael K. Konstantinidis, Argyrios Ioannidis, Panteleimon Vassiliu, Nikolaos Arkadopoulos, Ioannis S. Papanikolaou, Konstantinos Stavridis, Gaetano Gallo, Dimitrios Karagiannis, Manish Chand, Steven D. Wexner, Konstantinos Konstantinidis
    Frontiers in Surgery.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Assessment of Autologous Blood marker localIzation and intraoperative coLonoscopy localIzation in laparoscopic colorecTal cancer surgery (ABILITY): a randomized controlled trial
    Ke-hui Zhang, Jing-ze Li, Hai-bin Zhang, Ren-hao Hu, Xi-mao Cui, Tao Du, Liang Zheng, Shun Zhang, Chun Song, Mei-dong Xu, Xiao-hua Jiang
    BMC Cancer.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Indocyanine Green tattooing for marking the caudal excision margin of a full-thickness vaginal endometriotic nodule
    S Khazali, B Mondelli, K Fleischer, M Adamczyk
    Facts, Views and Vision in ObGyn.2023; 15(1): 89.     CrossRef
  • Indocyanine green dye and its application in gastrointestinal surgery: The future is bright green
    Zavier Yongxuan Lim, Swetha Mohan, Sunder Balasubramaniam, Saleem Ahmed, Caroline Ching Hsia Siew, Vishal G Shelat
    World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2023; 15(9): 1841.     CrossRef
  • Tumor Segmentation in Colorectal Ultrasound Images Using an Ensemble Transfer Learning Model: Towards Intra-Operative Margin Assessment
    Freija Geldof, Constantijn W. A. Pruijssers, Lynn-Jade S. Jong, Dinusha Veluponnar, Theo J. M. Ruers, Behdad Dashtbozorg
    Diagnostics.2023; 13(23): 3595.     CrossRef
  • Fluorescence Imaging in Colorectal Surgery: An Updated Review and Future Trends
    Paulina Daniluk, Natalia Mazur, Maciej Swierblewski, Manish Chand, Michele Diana, Karol Polom
    Surgical Innovation.2022; 29(4): 479.     CrossRef
  • Promising Novel Technique for Tumor Localization in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Using Indocyanine Green-Coated Endoscopic Clips
    Dong Woon Lee, Dae Kyung Sohn, Kyung Su Han, Chang Won Hong, Hyoung Chul Park, Jae Hwan Oh
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2021; 64(1): e9.     CrossRef
  • Digital dynamic discrimination of primary colorectal cancer using systemic indocyanine green with near-infrared endoscopy
    Jeffrey Dalli, Eamon Loughman, Niall Hardy, Anwesha Sarkar, Mohammad Faraz Khan, Haseeb A. Khokhar, Paul Huxel, Donal F. O’Shea, Ronan A. Cahill
    Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Endoscopic Preoperative Tattooing and Marking in the Gastrointestinal Tract: A Systematic Review of Alternative Methods
    Manuel Barberio, Margherita Pizzicannella, Giovanni Guglielmo Laracca, Mahdi Al-Taher, Andrea Spota, Jacques Marescaux, Eric Felli, Michele Diana
    Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.2020; 30(9): 953.     CrossRef
  • The Usefulness of Preoperative Colonoscopic Tattooing with Autologous Blood for Localization in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery
    Ui Do Yeo, Nak Song Sung, Seung Jae Roh, Won Jun Choi, Kyung Ho Song, In Seok Choi, Dae Sung Yoon, Sang Eok Lee, Ju Ik Moon, Seong Uk Kwon, In Eui Bae, Seung Jae Lee
    The Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2020; 23(3): 114.     CrossRef
  • Preoperative Colonoscopic Tattooing Using a Direct Injection Method with Indocyanine Green for Localization of Colorectal Tumors: An Efficacy and Safety Comparison Study
    Young Jin Kim, Ji Won Park, Han-Ki Lim, Yoon-Hye Kwon, Min Jung Kim, Eun Kyung Choe, Sang Hui Moon, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Seung-Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park
    The Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2020; 23(4): 186.     CrossRef
  • Robotic excision of a colonic neoplasm with ICG as a tumor localizer and colonoscopic assistance
    S. Atallah, A. Oldham, A. Kondek, S. Larach
    Techniques in Coloproctology.2019; 23(6): 573.     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
AbstractAbstract 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
Safety and Feasibility of a Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Resection in Elderly Patients
Duck Hyoun Jeong, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Nam Kyu Kim
Ann Coloproctol. 2013;29(1):22-27.   Published online February 28, 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2013.29.1.22
  • 5,594 View
  • 35 Download
  • 21 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose

The aim of this study is to assess the effects of age on the short-term outcomes of a laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer in elderly (≥75 years old), as compared with younger (<75 years old), patients.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer between January 2007 and December 2009 was performed. There were two groups: age <75 years old (group A) and age ≥75 years old (group B). The perioperative outcomes between group A and group B were compared.

Results

The study included 824 patients in group A and 92 patients in group B. The body mass index (BMI) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score were significantly different between group B and group A (BMI: 22.5 vs. 23.5, P = 0.002; ASA score: 1.88 vs. 1.48, P = 0.001). Mean operating times were similar between the groups (325.4 minutes vs. 351.6 minutes, P = 0.07). We observed a higher overall complication rate in group B than in group A (12.0% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.047), but the number of severe complications of Accordion Severity Classification ≥3 (those that required an invasive procedure) was not significantly different between the two groups (6.5% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.142). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay (13.0 days vs. 12.0 days, P = 0.053).

Conclusion

Although the elderly patients had a significantly higher overall postoperative complication rate, no significant difference was seen in either the number of severe complications of Accordion Severity Classification ≥3 or in the length of hospital stay. A laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection in elderly patients, especially those aged 75 years or older, is safe and feasible.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Evaluation of Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection Among Elderly Individuals With Colorectal Malignancy: A Single-center Retrospective Analysis
    Yanru Zhang, Tufeng Chen, Xiaofeng Yang, Yiquan Li, Purun Lei
    Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques.2024; 34(3): 281.     CrossRef
  • Risk Factors for Postoperative Paralytic Ileus in Advanced-age Patients after Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective Study of 124 Consecutive Patients
    Takaaki Fujimoto, Tatsuya Manabe, Kumpei Yukimoto, Yasuhiro Tsuru, Hiroshi Kitagawa, Keiichiro Okuyama, Shin Takesue, Keita Kai, Hirokazu Noshiro
    Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2023; 7(1): 30.     CrossRef
  • Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection yields comparable clinical and oncological results with shorter hospital stay compared to open access: a 5-year national cohort
    Elisabeth Myrseth, Petter Fosse Gjessing, Linn Såve Nymo, Hartwig Kørner, Jan Terje Kvaløy, Stig Norderval
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Effect of intraoperative blood loss on postoperative complications and prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer: A meta‑analysis
    Zi-Wei Li, Xin-Peng Shu, Ze-Lin Wen, Fei Liu, Xu-Rui Liu, Quan Lv, Xiao-Yu Liu, Wei Zhang, Dong Peng
    Biomedical Reports.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study
    Elisabeth Myrseth, Linn Såve Nymo, Petter Fosse Gjessing, Hartwig Kørner, Jan Terje Kvaløy, Stig Norderval
    Surgical Endoscopy.2022; 36(5): 3574.     CrossRef
  • Age and comorbidities do not affect short-term outcomes after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection in elderly patients. A multi-institutional cohort study in 287 patients
    Roberto Peltrini, Nicola Imperatore, Filippo Carannante, Diego Cuccurullo, Gabriella Teresa Capolupo, Umberto Bracale, Marco Caricato, Francesco Corcione
    Updates in Surgery.2021; 73(2): 527.     CrossRef
  • Perioperative and oncologic outcomes in young and octogenarian patients with colorectal cancer: a comparison at the extremes
    Dedrick Kok Hong Chan, Sze Wai Leong, Christopher Hang Liang Keh
    Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2021; 406(7): 2399.     CrossRef
  • Decreasing Postoperative Pulmonary Complication Following Laparoscopic Surgery in Elderly Individuals with Colorectal Cancer: A Competing Risk Analysis in a Propensity Score–Weighted Cohort Study
    Yih-Jong Chern, Jeng-Fu You, Ching-Chung Cheng, Jing-Rong Jhuang, Chien-Yuh Yeh, Pao-Shiu Hsieh, Wen-Sy Tsai, Chun-Kai Liao, Yu-Jen Hsu
    Cancers.2021; 14(1): 131.     CrossRef
  • Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in the elderly aged over 80 years old versus non-elderly: a retrospective cohort study
    Yoshitake Ueda, Norio Shiraishi, Takahide Kawasaki, Tomonori Akagi, Shigeo Ninomiya, Hidefumi Shiroshita, Tsuyoshi Etoh, Masafumi Inomata
    BMC Geriatrics.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in the elderly versus non-elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Nobuaki Hoshino, Yudai Fukui, Koya Hida, Yoshiharu Sakai
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2019; 34(3): 377.     CrossRef
  • Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for pT3/pT4 colorectal cancer in young vs. old patients
    Gabriele Bellio, Marina Troian, Arianna Pasquali, Nicolò de Manzini
    Minerva Chirurgica.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Long-term outcomes of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in elderly patients
    Yoshifumi Takahashi, Ken-ichi Mizuno, Kazuya Takahashi, Hiroki Sato, Satoru Hashimoto, Manabu Takeuchi, Masaaki Kobayashi, Junji Yokoyama, Yuichi Sato, Shuji Terai
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2017; 32(4): 567.     CrossRef
  • Results of surgical treatment of colorectal cancer in nonagenarian patients
    Arthur Manoel Braga de Albuquerque Gomes, Fábio Lopes de Queiroz, Rodrigo de Almeida Paiva
    Journal of Coloproctology.2017; 37(04): 285.     CrossRef
  • Evaluation of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients aged over 75 years old: a multi-institutional study (YSURG1401)
    Keisuke Kazama, Toru Aoyama, Tsutomu Hayashi, Takanobu Yamada, Masakatsu Numata, Shinya Amano, Mariko Kamiya, Tsutomu Sato, Takaki Yoshikawa, Manabu Shiozawa, Takashi Oshima, Norio Yukawa, Yasushi Rino, Munetaka Masuda
    BMC Surgery.2017;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer after Preoperative Chemoradiation in Elderly Patients
    Je-Min Choi, Seung-Hun Lee, Seung-Hyun Lee, Byung-Kwon Ahn
    The Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2017; 20(3): 108.     CrossRef
  • Elderly patients have more infectious complications following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery
    C. L. Kvasnovsky, K. Adams, M. Sideris, J. Laycock, A. K. Haji, A. Haq, J. Nunoo‐Mensah, S. Papagrigoriadis
    Colorectal Disease.2016; 18(1): 94.     CrossRef
  • Laparoscopic surgery for patients with colorectal cancer produces better short‐term outcomes with similar survival outcomes in elderly patients compared to open surgery
    Soo Yun Moon, Sohee Kim, Soo Young Lee, Eon Chul Han, Sung‐Bum Kang, Seung‐Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park, Jae Hwan Oh
    Cancer Medicine.2016; 5(6): 1047.     CrossRef
  • Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in the elderly: A prospective cohort study
    Katsuji Tokuhara, Kazuyoshi Nakatani, Yosuke Ueyama, Kazuhiko Yoshioka, Masanori Kon
    International Journal of Surgery.2016; 27: 66.     CrossRef
  • Impact of intraoperative blood loss on morbidity and survival after radical surgery for colorectal cancer patients aged 80 years or older
    Ryosuke Okamura, Koya Hida, Suguru Hasegawa, Yoshiharu Sakai, Madoka Hamada, Masayoshi Yasui, Takao Hinoi, Masahiko Watanabe
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2016; 31(2): 327.     CrossRef
  • Is laparoscopic surgery really effective for the treatment of colon and rectal cancer in very elderly over 80 years old? A prospective multicentric case–control assessment
    Francesco Roscio, Luigi Boni, Federico Clerici, Paolo Frattini, Elisa Cassinotti, Ildo Scandroglio
    Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(10): 4372.     CrossRef
  • Age Over 80 is a Possible Risk Factor for Postoperative Morbidity After a Laparoscopic Resection of Colorectal Cancer
    Taekhyun Kang, Hyung Ook Kim, Hungdai Kim, Ho-Kyung Chun, Won Kon Han, Kyung Uk Jung
    Annals of Coloproctology.2015; 31(6): 228.     CrossRef
Feasibility of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery as Compared to Open Surgery for Sigmoid Colon Cancer: A Case-Controlled Study
Sang Eun Nam, Eun-Joo Jung, Chun-Geun Ryu, Jin Hee Paik, Dae-Yong Hwang
Ann Coloproctol. 2013;29(1):17-21.   Published online February 28, 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2013.29.1.17
  • 5,388 View
  • 18 Download
  • 5 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate short-term clinical outcomes by comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with open surgery for sigmoid colon cancer.

Methods

Twenty-six patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection (HAL-AR group) and 52 patients who underwent a conventional open anterior resection during the same period were enrolled (open group) in this study with a case-controlled design.

Results

Pathologic parameters were similar between the two groups. The incidences of immediate postoperative leukocytosis were 38.5% in the HAL-AR group and 69.2% in the open group (P = 0.009). There were no significant differences between the two groups as to leukocyte count, hemoglobin, and hematocrits (P = 0.758, P = 0.383, and P = 0.285, respectively). Of the postoperative recovery indicators, first flatus, sips of water and soft diet started on postoperative days 3, 5, 7 in the HALS group and on days 4, 5, 6 in the open group showed statistical significance (P = 0.021, P = 0.259, and P = 0.174, respectively). Administration of additional pain killers was needed for 1.2 days in the HAL-AR group and 2.4 days in the open group (P = 0.002). No significant differences in the durations of hospital stay and the rates of postoperative complications were noted, and no postoperative mortality was encountered in either group.

Conclusion

The patients with sigmoid colon cancer who underwent a HAL-AR had a lower incidence of postoperative leukocytosis, less administration of pain killers, and faster first flatus than those who underwent open surgery. Clinical outcomes for patients' recovery and pathology status were similar between the two groups. Therefore, a HAL-AR for sigmoid colon cancer is feasible and has the same benefit as minimally invasive surgery.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer
    Xubing Zhang, Qingbin Wu, Chaoyang Gu, Tao Hu, Liang Bi, Ziqiang Wang
    Medicine.2017; 96(33): e7794.     CrossRef
  • Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: A Versatile Tool for Colorectal Surgeons
    Ju Yong Cheong, Christopher J. Young
    Annals of Coloproctology.2017; 33(4): 125.     CrossRef
  • Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs open colectomy: an assessment from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted cohort
    Cigdem Benlice, Meagan Costedio, Luca Stocchi, Maher A. Abbas, Emre Gorgun
    The American Journal of Surgery.2016; 212(5): 808.     CrossRef
  • Learning curve for hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 radical gastrectomy
    Jia-Qing Gong
    World Journal of Gastroenterology.2015; 21(5): 1606.     CrossRef
  • Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy: a prospective study
    JiaQing Gong, YongKuan Cao, YunMing Li, GuoHu Zhang, PeiHong Wang, GuoDe Luo
    Surgical Endoscopy.2014; 28(10): 2998.     CrossRef
Case Report
Giant Peritoneal Loose Body in the Pelvic Cavity
Joung Teak Jang, Haeng Ji Kang, Ji Young Yoon, Seo Gue Yoon
J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2012;28(2):108-110.   Published online April 30, 2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2012.28.2.108
  • 5,421 View
  • 45 Download
  • 16 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF

We report a case of a large peritoneal loose body diagnosed on computed tomography. The most common causes of a peritoneal loose body are thought to be torsion and separation of the appendices epiploicae. Peritoneal loose bodies are usually small, 0.5 to 2.5 cm in diameter. However, "giant" peritoneal loose bodies, larger than 4 cm in diameter, are an uncommon disease and present with various symptoms, and are difficult to diagnose preoperatively. Especially, abdominal large peritoneal loose bodies are frequently misdiagnosed as tumorous disease preoperatively. In our case, the loose body appeared as a round pelvic mass with central calcifications and a distinct fat plane separating it from adjacent organs. Preoperatively, we suspected a tumorous lesion from the wall of the upper rectum; however, at laparoscopy, a large peritoneal loose body was detected. An extraction of the giant peritoneal loose body was performed laparoscopically.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Epiploic appendagitis: An overlooked cause of acute abdominal pain
    Yasser El-Sawaf, Salman Alzayani, Nermin K Saeed, Adel S Bediwy, Reem Elbeltagi, Khaldoon Al-Roomi, Mohammed Al-Beltagi
    World Journal of Gastroenterology.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Unveiling the rarity: A case report of giant peritoneal loose body
    Abdudin Heru Mehammed, Natnael Alemu Bezabih, Muluken Yifru Gebresilassie, Yohanna Aregawi Hailu, Mengistu Yismie Semahegn, Misganaw Yigletie Damtie
    Radiology Case Reports.2024; 19(11): 5492.     CrossRef
  • A Case of a Fixed Giant Peritoneal Loose Body outside the Peritoneum and near the Rectovesical Excavation
    Kotaro Nanno, Seiichi Shinji, Takeshi Yamada, Akihisa Matsuda, Ryo Ohta, Hiromichi Sonoda, Takuma Iwai, Kohki Takeda, Kazuhide Yonaga, Koji Ueda, Sho Kuriyama, Toshimitsu Miyasaka, Hiromasa Komori, Yoshinobu Shioda, Hiroshi Yoshida
    Journal of Nippon Medical School.2023; 90(3): 276.     CrossRef
  • Incidental peritoneal loose body in a polytrauma patient: The unnoticed scenario: A case report
    Abraham Ariaya, Musse Ahmed, Esubalew Taddese Mindaye
    International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2021; 85: 106158.     CrossRef
  • Peritoneal loose body presenting as a hepatic mass: A case report and review of the literature
    Yang Wen, Min-jie Shang, Yan-qing Ma, Song-hua Fang, Yuan Chen
    Open Medicine.2021; 16(1): 1356.     CrossRef
  • A rare peritoneal egg: Case report with literature review
    Nilu Malpani Dhoot, Shivaraj Afzalpurkar, Usha Goenka, Vinay Mahendra, Enam Murshed Khan, Arpita Sutradhar, Mahesh Goenka
    Radiology Case Reports.2020; 15(10): 1895.     CrossRef
  • Exploratory laparoscopy as first choice procedure for the diagnosis of giant peritoneal loose body: a case report
    RuiBin Li, ZhiHeng Wan, HaoTian Li
    Journal of International Medical Research.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • A giant peritoneal loose body impacted in the pelvic cavity, a rare and interesting finding during laparotomy
    Ayad A. Mohammed
    International Journal of Surgery: Global Health.2020; 3(6): e24.     CrossRef
  • Giant peritoneal loose body in a patient with end-stage renal disease
    Nadejda Cojocari, Leonard David
    SAGE Open Medical Case Reports.2018;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Laparoscopic extraction of a giant peritoneal loose body: Case report and review of literature
    Keiso Matsubara, Yuji Takakura, Takashi Urushihara, Takashi Nishisaka, Toshiyuki Itamoto
    International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2017; 39: 188.     CrossRef
  • Two giant peritoneal loose bodies were simultaneously found in one patient: A case report and review of the literature
    Qingxing Huang, Aihong Cao, Jun Ma, Zhenhua Wang, Jianhong Dong
    International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2017; 36: 74.     CrossRef
  • Symptomatic giant peritoneal loose body in the pelvic cavity: A case report
    Andreas Elsner, Mikolaj Walensi, Maya Fuenfschilling, Robert Rosenberg, Robert Mechera
    International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2016; 21: 32.     CrossRef
  • Giant peritoneal loose body in the pelvic cavity confirmed by laparoscopic exploration: a case report and review of the literature
    Hong Zhang, Yun-zhi Ling, Ming-ming Cui, Zhi-xiu Xia, Yong Feng, Chun-sheng Chen
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology.2015;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Autoamputation of a pedunculated, subserosal uterine leiomyoma presenting as a giant peritoneal loose body
    Izumi Suganuma, Taisuke Mori, Tokuei Takahara, Hiroko Torii, Masanori Fujishiro, Tomohisa Kihira, Yuko Urabe, Mamoru Urabe, Jo Kitawaki
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.2015; 291(4): 951.     CrossRef
  • Laparoscopic Surgery for a Peritoneal Loose Body 50 mm in Diameter ^|^mdash;A Case Report^|^mdash;
    Takashi MIYAKE, Masahiko SUZUKI, Yutaro ASABA, Masahito UJI, Tomohito SATO, Yasunobu MIZUKAMI
    Nihon Rinsho Geka Gakkai Zasshi (Journal of Japan Surgical Association).2014; 75(2): 569.     CrossRef
  • A Giant Peritoneal Loose Body
    Hyun-Soo Kim, Ji-Youn Sung, Won Seo Park, Youn Wha Kim
    Korean Journal of Pathology.2013; 47(4): 378.     CrossRef
Original Article
Comparison of Short-term Surgical Outcomes between a Robotic Colectomy and a Laparoscopic Colectomy during Early Experience
Jin Yong Shin
J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2012;28(1):19-26.   Published online February 29, 2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2012.28.1.19
  • 6,392 View
  • 57 Download
  • 43 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose

Although robotic surgery was invented to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery, the role of a robotic (procto)colectomy (RC) for the treatment of colorectal cancer compared to that of a laparoscopic (procto)colectomy (LC) was not well defined during the initial adoption periods of both procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of a RC for the treatment of colorectal cancer by comparing the authors' initial experiences with both a RC and a LC.

Methods

The first 30 patients treated by using a RC for colorectal cancer from July 2010 to March 2011 were compared with the first 30 patients treated by using a LC for colorectal cancer from December 2006 to June 2007 by the same surgeon. Perioperative variables and short-term outcomes were analyzed. In addition, the 30 RC and the 30 LC cases involved were divided into rectal cancer (n = 17 and n = 12, respectively), left-sided colon cancer (n = 7 and n = 12, respectively) and right-sided colon cancer (n = 6 and n = 6, respectively) for subgroup analyses.

Results

The mean operating times for RC and LC were significantly different at 371.8 and 275.5 minutes, respectively, but other perioperative parameters (rates of open conversion, numbers of retrieved lymph node, estimated blood losses, times to first flatus, maximal pain scores before discharge and postoperative hospital stays) were not significantly different in the two groups. Subgroup analyses showed that the mean operative times for a robotic proctectomy and a laparoscopic proctectomy were 396.5 and 298.8 minutes, respectively (P < 0.000). Postoperative complications occurred in five patients in the RC group and in six patients in the LC group (P = 0.739).

Conclusion

Although the short-term outcomes of a RC during its initial use were better than those of a LC (with the exception of operating time), differences were not found to be significantly different. On the other hand, the longer operation time of a robotic proctectomy compared to that of a laparoscopic proctectomy during the early period may be problematic.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Comparison of Operative Time Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Zhen Chen, Hua Yu, Huaping Wu, Pingxi Wang, Fanwei Zeng
    Surgical Innovation.2023; 30(3): 390.     CrossRef
  • Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Jianchun Zheng, Shuai Zhao, Wei Chen, Ming Zhang, Jianxiang Wu
    Techniques in Coloproctology.2023; 27(7): 521.     CrossRef
  • Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Leonardo Solaini, Antonio Bocchino, Andrea Avanzolini, Domenico Annunziata, Davide Cavaliere, Giorgio Ercolani
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2022; 37(7): 1497.     CrossRef
  • The Senhance Surgical System in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review
    Tyler McKechnie, Jigish Khamar, Ryan Daniel, Yung Lee, Lily Park, Aristithes G. Doumouras, Dennis Hong, Mohit Bhandari, Cagla Eskicioglu
    Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 17(2): 325.     CrossRef
  • Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Colectomies Using the 2019 ACS NSQIP Database
    Sara S. Soliman, Joseph Flanagan, Yun Hsiang Wang, Patricia B. Stopper, Rolando H. Rolandelli, Zoltan H. Nemeth
    Southern Medical Journal.2022; 115(12): 887.     CrossRef
  • Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Pietro Genova, Gianni Pantuso, Calogero Cipolla, Mario Adelfio Latteri, Solafah Abdalla, Jean-Christophe Paquet, Francesco Brunetti, Nicola de’Angelis, Salomone Di Saverio
    Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2021; 406(5): 1317.     CrossRef
  • Urological and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta‐analysis and meta‐regression
    Ian Jun Yan Wee, Li‐Jen Kuo, James Chi‐Yong Ngu
    The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2021; 17(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Comparison of clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy for right colon tumor
    Quan Li Zhu, Xin Xu, Zhi Jian Pan
    Medicine.2021; 100(33): e27002.     CrossRef
  • Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery
    Deborah S. Keller, Christina N. Jenkins
    Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2021; 34(05): 273.     CrossRef
  • Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results
    Guojun Tong, Guiyang Zhang, Zhaozheng Zheng
    Asian Journal of Surgery.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients in terms of recovery time: a monocentric experience
    Giuseppe Palomba, Vincenza Paola Dinuzzi, Marianna Capuano, Pietro Anoldo, Marco Milone, Giovanni Domenico De Palma, Giovanni Aprea
    Journal of Robotic Surgery.2021; 16(4): 981.     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
  • The “Micro Hand S” Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: Short-Term Outcomes at a Single Center
    Yijia Zeng, Guohui Wang, Yong Liu, Zheng Li, Bo Yi, Shaihong Zhu
    Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.2020; 30(4): 363.     CrossRef
  • Robotic right colonic resection. Is the robotic third arm a game-changer?
    Alberto Mangano, Federico Gheza, Roberto Bustos, Mario Masrur, Francesco Bianco, Eduardo Fernandes, Valentina Valle, Pier C. Giulianotti
    Minerva Chirurgica.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Robotic Right Colectomy for Colon Cancer; Two Case Reports
    Ryosuke Fukuyo, Hironobu Baba, Takatoshi Matsuyama, Akifumi Kikuchi, Shinichi Yamauchi, Ayumi Takaoka, Yuriko Matsumiya, Yudai Yamamoto, Masanori Tokunaga, Yusuke Kinugasa
    The Japanese Journal of Gastroenterological Surgery.2020; 53(2): 164.     CrossRef
  • Impact of ASA-score, age and learning curve on early outcome in the initiation phase of an oncological robotic colorectal program
    Hülya Sarikaya, Tahar Benhidjeb, Sergiu I. Iosivan, Theodoros Kolokotronis, Christine Förster, Stephan Eckert, Ludwig Wilkens, Alaa Nasser, Sebastian Rehberg, Martin Krüger, Jan Schulte am Esch
    Scientific Reports.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Robotic or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer - which is the best answer? a comprehensive review of non-oncological outcomes and learning curve
    Sandra L. Kavalukas, Amandeep Ghuman, Stephen P. Sharp, Steven D. Wexner
    Mini-invasive Surgery.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach
    Emanuele Rausa, Michael Eamon Kelly, Emanuele Asti, Alberto Aiolfi, Gianluca Bonitta, Luigi Bonavina
    Surgical Endoscopy.2019; 33(4): 1020.     CrossRef
  • Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study
    Jun Seok Park, Hyun Kang, Soo Yeun Park, Hye Jin Kim, In Teak Woo, In-Kyu Park, Gyu-Seog Choi
    Surgical Endoscopy.2019; 33(9): 2975.     CrossRef
  • Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis
    Ka Ting Ng, Azlan Kok Vui Tsia, Vanessa Yu Ling Chong
    World Journal of Surgery.2019; 43(4): 1146.     CrossRef
  • A standardized suprapubic bottom-to-up approach in robotic right colectomy: technical and oncological advances for complete mesocolic excision (CME)
    Jan Schulte am Esch, Sergio-I. Iosivan, Fabian Steinfurth, Ammar Mahdi, Christine Förster, Ludwig Wilkens, Alaa Nasser, Hülya Sarikaya, Tahar Benhidjeb, Martin Krüger
    BMC Surgery.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
    Leonardo Solaini, Francesca Bazzocchi, Davide Cavaliere, Andrea Avanzolini, Alessandro Cucchetti, Giorgio Ercolani
    Surgical Endoscopy.2018; 32(3): 1104.     CrossRef
  • Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic Right Colectomy
    Scott R. Kelley, Emilie Duchalais, David W. Larson
    The American Surgeon™.2018; 84(11): 1768.     CrossRef
  • Robot-Assisted Colectomy for Left-Sided Colon Cancer: Comparison of Reduced-Port and Conventional Multi-Port Robotic Surgery
    Sung Uk Bae, Woon Kyung Jeong, Seong Kyu Baek
    Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.2017; 27(4): 398.     CrossRef
  • Colorectal surgery in elderly patients: our experience with DaVinci Xi® System
    A. Oldani, P. Bellora, M. Monni, B. Amato, S. Gentilli
    Aging Clinical and Experimental Research.2017; 29(S1): 91.     CrossRef
  • Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis
    Xuan Zhang, ZhengQiang Wei, MengJun Bie, XuDong Peng, Cheng Chen
    Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(12): 5601.     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
  • Comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sungwon Lim, Jin Hee Kim, Se-Jin Baek, Seon-Hahn Kim, Seon Heui Lee
    Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2016; 90(6): 328.     CrossRef
  • Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions
    Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán
    World Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 22(6): 1975.     CrossRef
  • Effect of BMI on Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: a Case-Matched Study
    Deborah S. Keller, Nisreen Madhoun, Juan Ramon Flores-Gonzalez, Sergio Ibarra, Reena Tahilramani, Eric M. Haas
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2016; 20(3): 488.     CrossRef
  • Robotic single docking total colectomy for ulcerative colitis: First experience with a novel technique
    Franco Roviello, Riccardo Piagnerelli, Francesco Ferrara, Maximilian Scheiterle, Lorenzo De Franco, Daniele Marrelli
    International Journal of Surgery.2015; 21: 63.     CrossRef
  • Is robot-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than the conventional laparoscopic procedure? A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes
    Fabio Rondelli, Ruben Balzarotti, Fabio Villa, Adriano Guerra, Nicola Avenia, Enrico Mariani, Walter Bugiantella
    International Journal of Surgery.2015; 18: 75.     CrossRef
  • Robotic colonic resection
    Emmanouil P. Pappou, Martin R. Weiser
    Journal of Surgical Oncology.2015; 112(3): 315.     CrossRef
  • European association of endoscopic surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery
    Amir Szold, Roberto Bergamaschi, Ivo Broeders, Jenny Dankelman, Antonello Forgione, Thomas Langø, Andreas Melzer, Yoav Mintz, Salvador Morales-Conde, Michael Rhodes, Richard Satava, Chung-Ngai Tang, Ramon Vilallonga
    Surgical Endoscopy.2015; 29(2): 253.     CrossRef
  • Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Seon Heui Lee, Sungwon Lim, Jin Hee Kim, Kil Yeon Lee
    Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2015; 89(4): 190.     CrossRef
  • Robot-assisted single-incision total colectomy: a case report
    Yen-Yi Juo, Vincent Obias
    The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2015; 11(1): 104.     CrossRef
  • Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colonic disease: a meta-analysis of postoperative variables
    Alberto Zarak, Alvaro Castillo, Kandace Kichler, Lucy de la Cruz, Leonardo Tamariz, Srinivas Kaza
    Surgical Endoscopy.2015; 29(6): 1341.     CrossRef
  • Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Colorectal Surgery Compared with Laparoscopic and Open Surgery: a Systematic Review
    Chang Woo Kim, Chang Hee Kim, Seung Hyuk Baik
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2014; 18(4): 816.     CrossRef
  • Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
    Ioannis G. Papanikolaou
    Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques.2014; 24(6): 478.     CrossRef
  • Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis
    Huirong Xu, Jianning Li, Yanlai Sun, Zengjun Li, Yanan Zhen, Bin Wang, Zhongfa Xu
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology.2014; 12(1): 274.     CrossRef
  • Outcomes and Costs Associated With Robotic Colectomy in the Minimally Invasive Era
    Joshua A. Tyler, Justin P. Fox, Mayur M. Desai, W. Brian Perry, Sean C. Glasgow
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2013; 56(4): 458.     CrossRef
  • Robotic Colonic Surgery
    Andrew Kai-Yip Fung, Emad H. Aly
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2013; 56(6): 786.     CrossRef
  • Lap Colectomy and Robotics for Colon Cancer
    Eduardo Parra-Davila, Sonia Ramamoorthy
    Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America.2013; 22(1): 143.     CrossRef
Case Report
Laparoscopic Approach to a Case of Appendicular Schwannoma
Suk Won Suh, Joong Min Park, Yoo Shin Choi, Sung Jae Cha, In Taik Chang, Beom Gyu Kim
J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2010;26(4):302-306.   Published online August 31, 2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2010.26.4.302
  • 4,130 View
  • 37 Download
  • 11 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF

Appendicular schwannoma is a rare tumor originating from Schwann's cells in the Auerbach plexus. The preoperative diagnosis is difficult because the clinical features are nonspecific, and it is mostly found accidentally via a radiologic image as a tumor, mimicking malignancy. We report a case of an appendicular schwannoma coexisting with an adenocarcinoma in the lung. A laparoscopic appendectomy was done with a clear resection margin, and the immunohistochemical staining showed positive S-100 protein, which confirmed the schwannoma. The patient also underwent a left upper lobectomy of the lung. The patient has been free of recurrence for the 6 months since the operation. The laparoscopic approach could be available for treatment of an appendicular schwannoma, thus avoiding an unnecessary laparotomy.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Appendiceal schwannoma — report of a case and literature review
    Joseph P. Doyle, Ricky H. Bhogal, Monica Terlizzo, Vasileios K. Mavroeidis
    Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -).2023; 192(4): 1801.     CrossRef
  • Appendiceal schwannoma presenting as acute appendicitis
    Myeong Ja Jeong
    Radiology Case Reports.2023; 18(3): 775.     CrossRef
  • Perilesional Lymph Node Swelling Might be a Radiologic Clue for Appendiceal Schwannoma: A Case Report
    Kunihito Suzuki, Kazuhiro Saito, Takafumi Yamada, Elly Arizono, Hidehiro Kumita, Kenta Kasahara, Kenji Katsumata, Koichiro Tasaki, Jun Matsubayashi, Toshitaka Nagao
    Current Medical Imaging Formerly Current Medical Imaging Reviews.2021; 17(10): 1266.     CrossRef
  • Appendiceal schwannoma: an incidental finding after Crohn's bowel resection
    Melanie D. Crispin
    ANZ Journal of Surgery.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Schwannoma of the appendix: A case report and review of the literature
    Ernest Cheng, Raymond Oliphant, Caroline Fung, Matthew Rickard, Anil Keshava
    Surgical Practice.2018; 22(2): 81.     CrossRef
  • Appendicular schwannoma presenting as vague abdominal pain
    Abdullah Mohammed Alshamrani, Rami Abdulrahman Sairafi, Ali Mohammed Alzahrani, Mostafa Abdel-Raheem
    Journal of Surgical Case Reports.2018;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Laparoscopic Resection of Appendiceal Schwannoma
    Toru Imagami, Satoru Takayama, Yohei Maeda, Ryohei Matsui, Masaki Sakamoto, Hisanori Kani
    Case Reports in Surgery.2018; 2018: 1.     CrossRef
  • A Case of Appendiceal Schwannoma
    Kojiro OMIYA, Satoaki KAMIYA, Satoru KAWAI, Kenji TAKAGI, Masanori UNO, Akihiro TOMIDA
    Nihon Rinsho Geka Gakkai Zasshi (Journal of Japan Surgical Association).2017; 78(1): 78.     CrossRef
  • Appendicular Schwannoma Presenting as Acute Appendicitis
    M.C. Kamp, J.M.J. van Unen
    Acta Chirurgica Belgica.2015; 115(4): 317.     CrossRef
  • A Case of Appendiceal Schwannoma
    Jae Won Choi, Seung Keun Park
    Intestinal Research.2013; 11(3): 223.     CrossRef
  • Schwannoma of ascending colon treated by laparoscopic right hemicolectomy
    Hun Jin Kim, Chang Hyung Kim, Sang Woo Lim, Jung Wook Huh, Young Jin Kim, Hyeong Rok Kim
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology.2012;[Epub]     CrossRef

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
TOP