Slawomir Marecik, MD, FACS Advocate Lutheran General Hospital,
Park Ridge, IL Clinical Assistant Professor University of Illinois,
Chicago, USA
Slide 2
Slide 3
Are here to stay One of the available tools in our
armamentarium Powerful tool Massive potential
Slide 4
Technically challenging Tumor location Anatomic structures
Difficult retraction Unstable camera Poor ergonomics for surgeon UK
MRC CLASICC
Slide 5
Advanced lesion Obese, low (male) APR
Slide 6
1 Quality Of Dissection 2 Minimally Invasive 3 Comfort For
Surgeon
Slide 7
Quality Of Dissection
Slide 8
Robotic n=56 Mesorectal grade Complete 52 Nearly complete 4
Incomplete 0 Laparoscopic n=57 Mesorectal Grade Complete 43 Nearly
complete 12 Incomplete 2 p=0.033p=0.033 Baik SH. Robotic versus
laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term
outcome of prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009
Quality Of Dissection
Slide 9
Pigazzi, Baek O.7 % CRM143 pts Kim 1.6 % CRM59 pts Prasad,
Marecik 1 % CRM82 pts ROLLAR ACOSOG Can we reduce preoperative
radiation? Improved urogenital function? Randomized Studies To
Compare Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Resection
Slide 10
The robot is more useful in certain areas Laparoscopy is more
useful in other areas A Hybrid Approach Is The Most Practical
Solution At This Time
Slide 11
Laparoscopic TME challenging Difficulties with advanced disease
An increase in obese patient population
Slide 12
Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, CDC. 2000
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults BRFSS, 1990, 2000, 2010 (*BMI 30,
or about 30 lbs. overweight for 54 person) 2010 1990 No Data
