Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Surg. 2018 Mar;267(3):521–526. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002112

Table 2.

Perioperative data of patients with rectal cancer who underwent robotic proctectomy between April 2009 and April 2016 (N=276).*

Characteristic

Technique
 Complete robotic 87 (31.5)
 Reverse hybrid (laparoscopic flexure mobilization) 175 (66.3)
 Converted to open 6 (2.2)

Intent
 Curative 267 (96.7)
 Palliative 9 (3.3)

Procedure
 Low anterior resection (Tumor Specific TME) 48 (17.4)
 Ultralow anterior resection (stapled) 125 (45.3)
 Ultralow anterior resection (hand-sewn coloanal) 49 (17.8)
 Abdominoperineal Resection 51 (18.5)
 Total Pelvic Exenteration 2 (0.7)
 Total Proctocolectomy 1 (0.4)

Extended / Contiguous resections 52 (18.8)
 Extended lymph node dissections (aortic, iliac, or obturator) 24 (8.7)
 Hysterectomy / oophorectomy 18 (6.5)
 Hepatectomy (synchronous) 7 (2.5)
 Total Cystectomy 2 (0.7)
 Prostatectomy (bladder preserving) 1 (0.4)

Additional procedures
 VRAM perineal reconstruction 5 (1.8)
 Intra-operative radiotherapy 2 (0.7)

Stoma
 Loop Ileostomy 188 (68.1)
 End Colostomy 53 (19.2)
 None 35 (12.7)

Median blood loss (IQR), mL 100 (150)

Major intra-op complication 5 (1.8)

Median hospital stay (IQR), days 4 (3)

Post-operative complications (Clavien Dindo, per event)
 Grade I 36 (13)
 Grade II 22 (8.0)
 Grade III 34 (12.3)
 Grade IV 2 (0.7)
 Grade V 2 (0.7)
*

Data are number of patients (%) unless otherwise indicated.

TME: Total Mesorectal Excision, IQR: Inter-quartile range, VRAM: Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous flap