講演情報
[JKS2-4]Robot-Assisted Colon Cancer Surgery Using Various Types of Robotic Surgical Systems
*Yasumitsu Hirano1 (1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Saitama, Japan)
Background and Aims: Colon cancer surgery has evolved differently in Japan and Korea, reflecting variations in surgical approaches and training systems. With the widespread adoption of robot-assisted surgery, harmonisation and standardisation of surgical techniques are increasingly important. Our department has implemented a multi-platform strategy using the da Vinci Xi, SP and 5 systems. This study evaluated their practical application in colon cancer surgery and their potential to contribute to harmonisation of surgical practices between Japan and Korea.
Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer at our institution. Technical characteristics, case-selection strategies and short-term outcomes of these systems were evaluated, focusing on procedural standardisation, minimal invasiveness, tissue-handling safety and objective assessment using digital data.
Results: Safe and precise colon cancer surgery was feasible with all three platforms. The Xi, with its versatility and established workflow, was suitable for standardised surgery and training. In selected patients, the SP enabled a single-port approach with safety comparable to the Xi, while reducing abdominal wall trauma through a shorter incision and less postoperative pain. The da Vinci 5 provided force feedback, allowing real-time awareness of tissue traction, while Case Insights enabled objective assessment of surgical performance. These findings suggest that standardisation does not require a single platform; rather, common surgical principles can be maintained while selecting the most appropriate system for each patient and procedure.
Conclusions: A multi-platform strategy using the respective strengths of the Xi, SP and 5 may achieve both minimal invasiveness and surgical safety. Shared principles of case selection, procedural standardisation and data-driven evaluation may contribute to a precise, reproducible and globally applicable standard for robotic colon cancer surgery.
Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer at our institution. Technical characteristics, case-selection strategies and short-term outcomes of these systems were evaluated, focusing on procedural standardisation, minimal invasiveness, tissue-handling safety and objective assessment using digital data.
Results: Safe and precise colon cancer surgery was feasible with all three platforms. The Xi, with its versatility and established workflow, was suitable for standardised surgery and training. In selected patients, the SP enabled a single-port approach with safety comparable to the Xi, while reducing abdominal wall trauma through a shorter incision and less postoperative pain. The da Vinci 5 provided force feedback, allowing real-time awareness of tissue traction, while Case Insights enabled objective assessment of surgical performance. These findings suggest that standardisation does not require a single platform; rather, common surgical principles can be maintained while selecting the most appropriate system for each patient and procedure.
Conclusions: A multi-platform strategy using the respective strengths of the Xi, SP and 5 may achieve both minimal invasiveness and surgical safety. Shared principles of case selection, procedural standardisation and data-driven evaluation may contribute to a precise, reproducible and globally applicable standard for robotic colon cancer surgery.