• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Robotic versus laparoscopic combined resection for rectal cancer and liver metastases

Robotic versus laparoscopic combined resection for rectal cancer and liver metastases

Jiyang Li, Yunhe Gao, Wenquan Liang, Kecheng Zhang, Jianxin Cui, Zhi Qiao, Bo Wei, Hongqing Xi, Lin Chen. Chinese PLA General Hospital

Background: Laparoscopic surgery is expanding in the treatment of liver metastases from gastrointestinal cancer due to its growing acceptance in safety, feasibility and efficacy recent years. Surgical robotic systems have recently supplemented and improved laparoscopic techniques. In this study, we compared the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic combined resection for rectal cancer and liver metastases.

Methods: This retrospective study used data from a prospective database at the Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital. From January 2009 to December 2016, 133 rectal cancer patients with liver metastasis accepted laparoscopic or robotic rectal cancer resection, combined with simultaneous or staged hepatectomy or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for liver metastases. The 133 patients enrolled in the study were divided into two groups: a robotic surgery group (n = 18) and a laparoscopic group (n = 115) which included three-dimensional laparoscopic (n=12) and two-dimensional laparoscopic (n=103). Primary endpoints were duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, conversions to an open procedure, resection margin status, in-hospital mortality and other postoperative recovery-related parameters.

Results: Forty-five patients underwent a simultaneous rectal and liver resection (mean operating time (robotic vs. laparoscopic): 426min vs. 378min, P=0.029), thirty patients had a simultaneous resection of primary rectal cancer and RFA of liver (mean operating time (robotic vs. laparoscopic): 382min vs. 315min, P=0.046), twenty-one patients underwent a staged rectal and liver resection (mean operating time (robotic vs. laparoscopic): 594min vs. 530min, P=0.057), and thirty-seven patients had a staged resection of primary rectal cancer and RFA of liver (mean operating time (robotic vs. laparoscopic): 521min vs. 484min, P=0.142). There were 9 conversions to an open procedure in the laparoscopic group. No in-hospital mortality occurred. An R0 resection margin was achieved in 98 %, with 3 positive cases in the laparoscopic group. Estimated blood loss, time to first flatus and postoperative complications, postoperative in-hospital days and 30-day readmission rates were similar in the two groups. On multivariate regression analysis, longer operation time and more conversion rates were not associated with the choice of minimal invasive techniques.

Conclusions: Robotic combined resection for rectal cancer and liver metastases was a safe and feasible minimal invasive approach for the management of rectal cancer with liver metastases. Although it has a longer operation time, its low mortality rate, conversion rate and comparable postoperative outcomes describes its bright prospect. 


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 94446

Program Number: P369

Presentation Session: Poster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

View this Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search