Skip to main content

Table 2 Patients with rectal cancer undergoing robot-assisted restorative rectal resection with at Aarhus University Hospital, 2017–2020 and the specific steps in the standardization based on the written form registered by the surgeon immediately after the operation or review of medical records. Number (percentages)

From: Implementation of a standardized surgical technique in robot-assisted restorative rectal cancer resection: a single center cohort study

 

Period 1: October 2017–August 2018

Period 2: September 2018–February 2020

Period 3: March 2020–October 2020

Central transection of IMA (high ligation)

 No

23 (37.1)

10 (13.5)

1 (3.4)

 Yes

34 (54.8)

55 (74.3)

25 (86.2)

 Missing

5 (8.1)

9 (12.2)

3 (10.3)

Central transection of IMV

 No

23 (37.1)

4 (5.4)

0

 Yes

35 (56.5)

66 (89.2)

28 (96.6)

 Missing

4 (6.5)

4 (5.4)

1 (3.4)

Mobilization of splenic flexure

 No

20 (32.3)

5 (6.8)

0

 Yes

41 (66.1)

69 (93.2)

29 (100)

 Missing

1 (1.6)

0

0

Transection of the anococcygale ligament (TME)

 No

0

0

0

 Yes

40 (95.2)

41 (85.4)

15 (93.8)

 Missing

2 (4.8)

7 (14.6)

1 (6.3)

Perpendicular transection of rectum

 No

0

0

0

 Yes

56 (90.3)

61 (82.4)

26 (89.7)

 Missing

6 (9.7)

13 (17.6)

3 (10.3)

Arterial bleeding of arcade artery

 No

2 (3.2)

0

0

 Yes

59 (95.2)

72 (97.3)

28 (96.6)

 Missing

1 (1.6)

2 (2.7)

1 (3.4)

  1. IMA inferior mesenteric artery, IMV inferior mesenteric vein, TME total mesorectal excision