Anterior robotic approach in en-bloc sacrectomy: a preliminary experience.
Aged
Female
Humans
Iliac Artery
Iliac Vein
Intraoperative Complications
/ prevention & control
Male
Margins of Excision
Middle Aged
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
/ methods
Rectum
/ surgery
Robotic Surgical Procedures
/ methods
Sacrococcygeal Region
Sacrum
/ blood supply
Spinal Neoplasms
/ surgery
En-bloc sacrectomy
Minimally invasive surgery
Robot-assisted surgery
Journal
Journal of robotic surgery
ISSN: 1863-2491
Titre abrégé: J Robot Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300401
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
04
01
2018
accepted:
25
03
2018
pubmed:
29
3
2018
medline:
20
6
2019
entrez:
29
3
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
En-bloc sacrectomy is a highly demanding surgical procedure necessary to obtain wide margin in sacral tumor. The double approach, anterior and posterior approach, is usually preferred for tumors extending proximally to S3 level where iliac internal vessels are at a higher risk for damage during posterior surgery. It can be justified also in selected cases to decrease the risk of posterior approach as in local recurrence or in patients who already underwent laparotomy. Our intent was to apply robotic-assisted techniques for performing anterior preparatory approach for sacrectomy surgery. Between December 2010 and December 2014, three cases of sacrectomies were performed in a previous robotic-assisted preparatory approach to separate the rectum from the tumor. Dissections were successfully performed in all cases close to the pelvic floor. The surgeon was able to position a Gore-Tex spacer between the anterior tumor surface and the rectum in all cases. The anterior dissections were performed with a perfect control of bleeding. No complications related to the anterior approach were reported. Robot-assisted surgery can be considered a valid and minimally invasive technique which allows a safe anterior dissection of the pelvic structures dividing tumors from surrounding tissues. It allows to place a spacer to protect organs during posterior sacral resection performed on the same day or at a later time. Further experiences are advocated to evaluate its efficiency in sacral tumors of greater size.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29589178
doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0807-4
pii: 10.1007/s11701-018-0807-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
53-59Références
Zhang HY, Thongtrangan I, Balabhadra RS et al (2003) Surgical techniques for total sacrectomy and spinopelvic reconstruction. Neurosurg Focus 15(2):E5
pubmed: 15350036
doi: 10.3171/foc.2003.15.2.5
Zoccali C, Skoch J, Patel A et al (2015) The surgical eurovascular anatomy relating to partial and complete sacral and sacroiliac resections: a cadaveric, anatomic study. Eur Spine J 24(5):1109–1113
doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3815-3
pubmed: 25682274
Zoccali C, Ferrraresi V, Rossi B et al (2015) Intermediate grade vertebral osteosarcoma in a patient affected by a sacral chondrosarcoma and hereditary multiple exostosis. Minerva Med 106(2):115–117
pubmed: 25901365
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services (2017) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_5x7.pdf
World Medical Association Inc (2009) Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Indian Med Assoc 107(6):403–405
Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM et al (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5331–5336
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248
pubmed: 19805679
pmcid: 2773219
Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):418–430
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.046
pubmed: 22749850
Sert BM, Abeler VM (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (Piver type III) with pelvic node dissection—case report. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 27:531
pubmed: 17139995
Yim GW, Kim YT (2012) Robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 24(1):14–23
doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32834daebc
pubmed: 22123220
Vizza E, Corrado G, Mancini E et al (2015) Laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a case control study. Eur J Surg Oncol 41(1):142–147
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.08.018
pubmed: 24063966
Holloway RW, Ahmad S, DeNardis SA et al (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: analysis of surgical performance. Gynecol Oncol 115:447–452
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.08.017
pubmed: 19765807
Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Richardson DL et al (2009) A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvicaortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 114:162–167
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.017
pubmed: 19428096
Sgarbura O, Vasilescu C (2010) The decisive role of the patient-side surgeon in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 24:3149–3155
doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1108-9
pubmed: 20495980
Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET et al (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:783–791
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.7508
pubmed: 22291073
pmcid: 3295567
Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U et al (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111:407–411
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.022
pubmed: 18829091
Lau S, Vaknin Z, Ramana-Kumar AV, Halliday D et al (2012) Outcomes and cost comparisons after introducing a robotics program for endometrial cancer surgery. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):717–724
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824c0956
pubmed: 22433334