©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 7, 2016; 22(13): 3602-3610
Published online Apr 7, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i13.3602
Published online Apr 7, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i13.3602
Table 3 Pathologic evaluation n (%)
| L-TME | R-TME | P value | |
| (n = 58) | (n = 53) | ||
| TNM stage | 0.716 | ||
| Stage I | 28 (48.3) | 22 (41.5) | |
| Stage II | 11 (19.0) | 8 (15.1) | |
| Stage III | 13 (22.4) | 18 (34.0) | |
| Pathological complete response | 6 (10.3) | 5 (9.4) | 0.381 |
| Total harvested lymph nodes1 | 11 (3-27) | 18 (4-49) | < 0.001 |
| DRM1 (cm) | 1.5 (0.5-5) | 2.5 (0.5-10) | < 0.001 |
| DRM | 0.729 | ||
| Involved | 1 (1.7) | 1 (1.9) | |
| Non involved | 57 (98.3) | 52 (98.1) | |
| CRM | 0.523 | ||
| Involved | 1 (1.7) | 0 | |
| Non involved | 57 (98.3) | 53 (100) | |
| Lymphovascular invasion | 10 (17.2) | 5 (9.4) | 0.087 |
- Citation: Feroci F, Vannucchi A, Bianchi PP, Cantafio S, Garzi A, Formisano G, Scatizzi M. Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: Laparoscopic vs robotic surgery. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(13): 3602-3610
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i13/3602.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i13.3602