Textbook Oncological Outcomes for Robotic Colorectal Cancer Resections: An Observational Study of Five Robotic Colorectal Units

被引:4
|
作者
Azevedo, Jose Moreira [1 ,2 ]
Panteleimonitis, Sofoklis [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Miskovic, Danilo [4 ]
Herrando, Ignacio [1 ]
Al-Dhaheri, Mahmood [5 ]
Ahmad, Mukhtar [6 ]
Qureshi, Tahseen [6 ]
Fernandez, Laura Melina [1 ]
Harper, Mick [3 ]
Parvaiz, Amjad [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Champalimaud Fdn, Ave Brasilia, P-1400038 Lisbon, Portugal
[2] Univ Lisbon, Fac Med, Ave Prof Egas Moniz MB, P-1649028 Lisbon, Portugal
[3] Univ Portsmouth, Sch Hlth & Care Profess, St Andrews Court, St Michaels Rd, Portsmouth PO1 2PR, England
[4] St Marks Hosp, London NW10 7NS, England
[5] Hamad Gen Hosp, Doha 3050, Qatar
[6] Poole Hosp NHS Trust, Longfleet Rd, Poole BH15 2JB, England
关键词
robotic surgery; colorectal cancer; surgical outcomes; colon cancer; rectal cancer; quality of care; SURGERY; CARE;
D O I
10.3390/cancers15153760
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Simple Summary The quality of care of patients receiving colorectal resections has conventionally relied on individual metrics. When discussing with patients what these outcomes mean, they often find them confusing or overwhelming. Textbook outcomes are a composite measure that summarises all the 'desirable' clinical and oncological outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of textbook outcomes in patients receiving robotic colorectal cancer surgery. We present a retrospective, multicentric study with data from a prospectively collected database. A textbook outcome was achieved when all components were realized: no conversion to open, no complication with a Clavien-Dindo & GE; 3, length of hospital stay & LE; 14, no 30-day readmission, no 30-day mortality, and R0 resection. Nearly 80% of patients achieved a textbook outcome, and abdominoperineal resection was a risk factor for failure. The rate of a textbook outcome may be used in future audits and to inform patients clearly on the success of treatment. Background: The quality of care of patients receiving colorectal resections has conventionally relied on individual metrics. When discussing with patients what these outcomes mean, they often find them confusing or overwhelming. Textbook oncological outcome (TOO) is a composite measure that summarises all the 'desirable' or 'ideal' postoperative clinical and oncological outcomes from both a patient's and doctor's point of view. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of TOO in patients receiving robotic colorectal cancer surgery in five robotic colorectal units and understand the risk factors associated with failure to achieve a TOO in these patients. Methods: We present a retrospective, multicentric study with data from a prospectively collected database. All consecutive patients receiving robotic colorectal cancer resections from five centres between 2013 and 2022 were included. Patient characteristics and short-term clinical and oncological data were collected. A TOO was achieved when all components were realized-no conversion to open, no complication with a Clavien-Dindo (CD) & GE; 3, length of hospital stay & LE; 14, no 30-day readmission, no 30-day mortality, and R0 resection. The main outcome measure was a composite measure of "ideal" practice called textbook oncological outcomes. Results: A total of 501 patients submitted to robotic colorectal cancer resection were included. Of the 501 patients included, 388 (77.4%) achieved a TOO. Four patients were converted to open (0.8%); 55 (11%) had LOS > 14 days; 46 (9.2%) had a CD & GE; 3 complication; 30-day readmission rate was 6% (30); 30-day mortality was 0.2% (1); and 480 (95.8%) had an R0 resection. Abdominoperineal resection was a risk factor for not achieving a TOO. Conclusions: Robotic colorectal cancer surgery in robotic centres achieves a high TOO rate. Abdominoperineal resection is a risk factor for failure to achieve a TOO. This measure may be used in future audits and to inform patients clearly on success of treatment.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of robotic colorectal resections for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic literature review
    Renshaw, S.
    Silva, I. L.
    Hotouras, A.
    Wexner, S. D.
    Murphy, J.
    Bhan, C.
    TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2018, 22 (03) : 161 - 177
  • [32] Review on Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy for Cancer
    Giuliani, Giuseppe
    Guerra, Francesco
    De Franco, Lorenzo
    Salvischiani, Lucia
    Benigni, Roberto
    Coratti, Andrea
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2021, 11 (07):
  • [33] The current status of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer
    Pigazzi, Alessio
    Halabi, Wissam J.
    COLORECTAL CANCER, 2013, 2 (02) : 113 - 116
  • [34] Hospital robotic use for colorectal cancer care
    Aaron C. Spaulding
    Hanadi Hamadi
    Osayande Osagiede
    Riccardo Lemini
    Jordan J. Cochuyt
    John Watson
    James M. Naessens
    Dorin T. Colibaseanu
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2021, 15 : 561 - 569
  • [35] Robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures for colorectal cancer
    Alekberzade, Aftandil
    Borisov, Vitaliy
    Kirov, Kiril
    Mena, Natmir
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2023, 17 (02) : 375 - 381
  • [36] Hospital robotic use for colorectal cancer care
    Spaulding, Aaron C.
    Hamadi, Hanadi
    Osagiede, Osayande
    Lemini, Riccardo
    Cochuyt, Jordan J.
    Watson, John
    Naessens, James M.
    Colibaseanu, Dorin T.
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2021, 15 (04) : 561 - 569
  • [37] Adoption of Robotic Technology for Treating Colorectal Cancer
    Schootman, Mario
    Hendren, Samantha
    Ratnapradipa, Kendra
    Stringer, Lisa
    Davidson, Nick O.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2016, 59 (11) : 1011 - 1018
  • [38] Robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures for colorectal cancer
    Aftandil Alekberzade
    Vitaliy Borisov
    Kiril Kirov
    Natmir Mena
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2023, 17 : 375 - 381
  • [39] Propensity score-matched analysis comparing laparoscopic to robotic surgery for colorectal cancer shows comparable clinical and oncological outcomes
    Christina A. Fleming
    Muhamad Fahad Ullah
    Kah Hoong Chang
    Emma McNamara
    Eoghan Condon
    David Waldron
    J. Calvin Coffey
    Colin B. Peirce
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2021, 15 : 389 - 396
  • [40] Propensity score-matched analysis comparing laparoscopic to robotic surgery for colorectal cancer shows comparable clinical and oncological outcomes
    Fleming, Christina A.
    Ullah, Muhamad Fahad
    Chang, Kah Hoong
    McNamara, Emma
    Condon, Eoghan
    Waldron, David
    Coffey, J. Calvin
    Peirce, Colin B.
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2021, 15 (03) : 389 - 396