Page 186 - Read Online
P. 186

Chen et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2018;2:42  I  http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2018.59                                         Page 13 of 17


               Table 5. Transanal total mesorectal excision
                                                      Group   Sample  Follow                        Level of
                Ref.             Study type Randomization                Questionnaires  Main findings
                                                     studied  size  up                             evidence
                Koedam et al. [53] , 2017  Prospective  No  TaTME   30  6 months EORTC QLQ-  -TaTME had decreased   4
                                 single                                  C30, QLQ-CR29,  urinary function, sexual
                                 center                                  EQ5D, LARS   function, fecal inconti-
                                                                                    nence and overall QOL
                                                                                    at 1 month compared to
                                                                                    baseline and returned
                                                                                    to normal by 6 months
                                                                                    -TaTME had decreased
                                                                                    social function and
                                                                                    anal pain at 6 months
                                                                                    compared to baseline
                                                                                    -TaTME had major
                                                                                    LARS in 33% after
                                                                                    ileostomy closure
                Veltcamp Helbach et al. [54] ,  Prospec-  No  TaTME vs.   54  6 months EORTC QLQ-  -TaTME had similar   2b
                2018             tive single         Lap TME             C30, QLQ-CR29,  QOL compared to lap
                                 center                                  EQ5D, LARS,   -TaTME had worse fecal
                                                                         IPSS       incontinence compared
                                                                                    to lap (EORTC QLQ-
                                                                                    CR29 only)
                Deijen et al. [55] ,   Prospective  Yes (2:1)  TaTME vs.   1098 60   EORTC QLQ-  -Pending  1
                2016 (COLOR III)                     Lap TME      months  C30, QLQ-CR29,
                                 multicenter                             EQ5D, LARS
                Serra-Aracil et al. [56] ,   Prospective  Yes (1:1)  TaTME vs.   116  6 months EORTC QLQ-  -Pending  1
                2018             multicenter         Lap TME             C30, QLQ-CR29,
                                                                         LARS
               TaTME: transanal total mesorectal excision; Lap: laparoscopic; TME: total mesorectal excision; LARS: low anterior resection syndrome;
               QOL: quality of life; EORTC QLQ-C30: European organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire, 30 cancer
               non-specific questions; EORTC QLQ-CR29: European organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire, 29
               colorectal cancer specific questions; EQ5D: European quality of life 5 dimensions questionnaire; IPSS: International Prostatic Symptom
               Score; Level of evidence: 1: randomized controlled trial; 2a: randomized prospective cohort study; 2b: nonrandomized prospective cohort
               study; 3: retrospective cohort study; 4: case series


               However, in contrast, the recent multicenter randomized controlled trials have shown the results to be
               either equivalent or worse in the laparoscopic group [23-26] . It will be important to follow the final long term
               quality of life findings of the large randomized control trials of ACCOSOG Z6051 and ALaCaRT [27,28] . This
               may underscore the inherent problem of working in the fixed space of the bony pelvis with conventional
               laparoscopy. Restricted movements of working instruments, two-dimensional view, difficult ergonomics
               and an unstable platform can make laparoscopy for rectal cancer challenging and may lead to a high con-
               version rate or unsatisfactory dissection.

               Key advances in robotic technology over the last two decades overcame challenges of laparoscopic and
               open surgery and allowed for enhanced three-dimensional view, and “wristed” instruments allowing for
               multiple degrees of freedom, a stable platform, and improved ergonomics. This was particularly important
               in complex colon and rectal surgery including procedures in the bony pelvis. For these reasons, robotic
               usage for all colorectal procedures grew from 2.6% to 6.6% between 2011-2015. In 2015, robotic utiliza-
               tion for rectopexy was 27%, for low anterior resection was 13%, and for abdominoperineal resection was
                   [57]
               15% . Although the technology has been limited by decreased haptics, steep learning curve, and concern
               of increased cost, widespread utilization of robotics is spreading quickly. In terms of quality of life, ro-
               botic surgery may be more promising than laparoscopic surgery in its improvement in chronic pain and
               insomnia based on single center studies, showing an earlier return to baseline quality of life compared to
               laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, several small single center short term studies demonstrated a signifi-
               cant improvement in sexual function. One study even showed a modest improvement in bladder function
               in robotic surgery patients compared to laparoscopic surgery patients [29-36] . Benefits have been attributed to
               the superior dissection allowed by robotic surgery. However, the multicenter ROLARR study showed that
   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191