Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/2180
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMcCormick, Jacob-
dc.contributor.authorHeriot, Alexander-
dc.contributor.authorWarrier, Satish-
dc.contributor.otherLarach, Jose-
dc.contributor.otherKong, Joseph-
dc.contributor.otherFlynn, Julie-
dc.contributor.otherWright, Timothy-
dc.contributor.otherMohan, Helen-
dc.contributor.otherWaters, Peadar-
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-22T04:24:51Z-
dc.date.available2023-05-22T04:24:51Z-
dc.date.issued2023-03-
dc.identifier.citationInt J Colorectal Dis . 2023 Mar 27;38(1):83en_US
dc.identifier.issn1432-1262en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/2180-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the approach on conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision within a single unit. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision between January 2006 and June 2020 were included. Subjects were classified according to the presence or absence of conversion. Baseline variables and short-term outcomes were compared. Regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the approach and conversion. Results: During the study period, 318 patients underwent a restorative proctectomy. Of these, 240 met the inclusion criteria. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches were undertaken in 147 (61.3%) and 93 (38.8%) cases, respectively. A transanal approach was utilised in 62 (25.8%) cases (58.1% in combination with a robotic transabdominal approach). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 30 cases (12.5%). Conversion was associated with an increased overall complication rate (P = 0.003), surgical complications (P = 0.009), superficial surgical site infections (P = 0.02) and an increased length of hospital stay (P = 0.006). Robotic and transanal approaches were both associated with decreased conversion rates. The multiple logistic regression analysis, however, showed that only a transanal approach was independently associated with a lower risk of conversion (OR 0.147, 0.023-0.532; P = 0.01), whilst obesity was an independent risk factor for conversion (OR 4.388, 1.852-10.56; P < 0.00). Conclusions: A transanal component is associated with a reduced conversion rate in minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision, regardless of the transabdominal approach utilised. Larger studies will be required to confirm these findings and define which subgroup of patients could benefit from transanal component when a robotic approach is undertaken.en_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.subjectConversionen_US
dc.subjectLaparoscopicen_US
dc.subjectRectal Canceren_US
dc.subjectRoboticen_US
dc.subjectTotal Mesorectal Excisionen_US
dc.subjectTransanalen_US
dc.subjectProctectomyen_US
dc.subjectTransabdominalen_US
dc.subjectMinimally Invasiveen_US
dc.subjectCancer Services Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.subjectGeneral Surgery and Gastrointestinal Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleImpact of the approach on conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00384-023-04382-0en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleInternational Journal of Colorectal Diseaseen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36971883/en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesCentral Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesCentral Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialRetrospective studiesen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Cancer Services

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.