• Something wrong with this record ?

Does robotic TME bring difference in lymph node yield and quality of TME

J. Votava, D. Kachlík, F. Pazdírek, M. Grega, M. Vjaclovský, J. Hoch

. 2023 ; 93 (12) : 2946-2950. [pub] 20230827

Language English Country Australia

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24000513

Grant support
GAUK 2120256 Grantová Agentura, Univerzita Karlova

BACKGROUNDS: Oncological outcomes of the robotic low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) are still under discussion. Few studies have proven that robotic TME (rTME) is a safe and equivalent method for treatment of rectal carcinoma. But there is almost no comparison between the rTME and conventional TME in terms of the number of lymph nodes obtained and the quality of the TME. METHODS: A single institution retrospective study was designed in a cohort of 261 patients. Cohort was divided into two groups depending on the type of surgery (rTME versus TME) and within these two groups, patients were divided according to whether they underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCHRT) or did not. The primary objective of the study was to compare obtained number of the lymph nodes in specimen. Secondary objectives were comparison of the quality of the TME and the number of positive circumferential resection margins. RESULTS: Results of the study have shown no significant difference in number of the lymph nodes obtained by the rTME and TME. There was no difference in the quality of the TME, neither in the group with the previous nCHRT nor in the group without a nCHRT. CONCLUSION: With results from the study we consider the rTME to be non-inferior to the conventional TME. Therefore, at least identical oncological results can be expected in patients treated by the rTME.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24000513
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240213093227.0
007      
ta
008      
240109s2023 at f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1111/ans.18667 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37635313
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a at
100    1_
$a Votava, Jan $u Department of Surgery, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Anatomy, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Centre for Endoscopic, Surgical and Clinical Anatomy (CESKA), Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000303163334
245    10
$a Does robotic TME bring difference in lymph node yield and quality of TME / $c J. Votava, D. Kachlík, F. Pazdírek, M. Grega, M. Vjaclovský, J. Hoch
520    9_
$a BACKGROUNDS: Oncological outcomes of the robotic low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) are still under discussion. Few studies have proven that robotic TME (rTME) is a safe and equivalent method for treatment of rectal carcinoma. But there is almost no comparison between the rTME and conventional TME in terms of the number of lymph nodes obtained and the quality of the TME. METHODS: A single institution retrospective study was designed in a cohort of 261 patients. Cohort was divided into two groups depending on the type of surgery (rTME versus TME) and within these two groups, patients were divided according to whether they underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCHRT) or did not. The primary objective of the study was to compare obtained number of the lymph nodes in specimen. Secondary objectives were comparison of the quality of the TME and the number of positive circumferential resection margins. RESULTS: Results of the study have shown no significant difference in number of the lymph nodes obtained by the rTME and TME. There was no difference in the quality of the TME, neither in the group with the previous nCHRT nor in the group without a nCHRT. CONCLUSION: With results from the study we consider the rTME to be non-inferior to the conventional TME. Therefore, at least identical oncological results can be expected in patients treated by the rTME.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a roboticky asistované výkony $x metody $7 D065287
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    12
$a laparoskopie $x metody $7 D010535
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    12
$a nádory rekta $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D012004
650    _2
$a lymfatické uzliny $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D008198
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Kachlík, David $u Department of Anatomy, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Centre for Endoscopic, Surgical and Clinical Anatomy (CESKA), Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Pazdírek, Filip $u Department of Surgery, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Grega, Marek $u Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Vjaclovský, Michal $u Department of Surgery, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hoch, Jiří $u Department of Surgery, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00006255 $t ANZ journal of surgery $x 1445-2197 $g Roč. 93, č. 12 (2023), s. 2946-2950
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37635313 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240109 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240213093224 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2049270 $s 1210207
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 93 $c 12 $d 2946-2950 $e 20230827 $i 1445-2197 $m ANZ journal of surgery $n ANZ J Surg $x MED00006255
GRA    __
$a GAUK 2120256 $p Grantová Agentura, Univerzita Karlova
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240109

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options