Comparing pathologic outcomes for robotic versus laparoscopic Surgery in rectal cancer resection: a propensity adjusted analysis of 7616 patients

被引:18
作者
Hopkins, M. Benjamin [1 ]
Geiger, Timothy M. [1 ]
Bethurum, Alva J. [1 ]
Ford, Molly M. [1 ]
Muldoon, Roberta L. [1 ]
Beck, David E. [1 ]
Stewart, Thomas G. [2 ]
Hawkins, Alexander T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Vanderbilt Univ, Med Ctr, Div Gen Surg, Sect Colon & Rectal Surg, 1161 21st Ave South,Room D5248 MCN, Nashville, TN 37232 USA
[2] Vanderbilt Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Biostat, Nashville, TN USA
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2020年 / 34卷 / 06期
关键词
Rectal cancer; Laparoscopy; Robotic surgery; Circumferential resection margin; Rectal surgery; ASSISTED RESECTION; OPEN-LABEL; DATA-BASE; PROCTECTOMY; TRIAL; EXPERIENCE;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-019-07032-1
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Margin negative resection of rectal cancer with minimally invasive techniques remains technically challenging. Robotic surgery has potential advantages over traditional laparoscopy. We hypothesize that the difference in the rate of negative margin status will be < 6% between laparoscopic and robotic approach. Methods The National Cancer Database (2010-2014) was queried for adults with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and curative resection to conduct an observational retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database. Patients were grouped by either robotic (ROB) or laparoscopic (LAP) approach in an intent-to-treat analysis. Primary outcome was negative margin status, defined as a composite of circumferential resection margin and distal margin. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), readmission, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. Results 7616 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent minimally invasive resection were identified. 2472 (32%) underwent attempted robotic approach. The overall conversion rate was 13% and was increased in the laparoscopic group [LAP: 15% vs. ROB: 8%; OR 0.47; 95% CI (0.39, 0.57)]. Differences in margin negative resection rate were within the prespecified range of practical equivalence (LAP: 93% vs.: ROB 94%; 95% CI (0.69, 1.06); p delta For secondary outcomes, there was no difference in 30-day readmission [LAP: 9% vs.: ROB 8%; 95% CI (0.84, 1.24)] and 90-day mortality [LAP: 1% vs.: ROB 1%; 95% CI (0.38, 1.24)]. While the median LOS was 5 days in both groups, the mean LOS was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.24, 0.89) days shorter in the robotic group. Conclusion This robust analysis supports either robotic or laparoscopic approach for resection of locally advanced rectal cancer from a margin perspective. Both have similar readmission and 5-year overall survival rates. Patients undergoing robotic surgery have a 0.6-day decrease in LOS and decreased conversion rate.
引用
收藏
页码:2613 / 2622
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Functional outcomes after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kowalewski, K. F.
    Seifert, L.
    Ali, S.
    Schmidt, M. W.
    Seide, S.
    Haney, C.
    Tapking, C.
    Shamiyeh, A.
    Kulu, Y.
    Hackert, T.
    Mueller-Stich, B. P.
    Nickel, F.
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2021, 35 (01): : 81 - 95
  • [22] Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010-2015)
    Chapman, Brandon C.
    Edgcomb, Mark
    Gleisner, Ana
    Vogel, Jon D.
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2020, 34 (11): : 4754 - 4771
  • [23] Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Khan, Muhammad Haris
    Tahir, Ammara
    Hussain, Amna
    Monis, Arysha
    Zahid, Shahroon
    Fatima, Maurish
    LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2024, 409 (01)
  • [24] The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery using a propensity score analysis
    Ishihara, Soichiro
    Kiyomatsu, Tomomichi
    Kawai, Kazushige
    Tanaka, Toshiaki
    Hata, Keisuke
    Kazama, Shinsuke
    Sunami, Eiji
    Nozawa, Hiroaki
    Watanabe, Toshiaki
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2018, 33 (08) : 1047 - 1055
  • [25] Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in elderly patients
    Dong, Jianhua
    Wang, Weiya
    Yu, Kun
    Gao, Yi
    Cheng, Xianshuo
    Liu, Ping
    Li, Ming
    Yang, Zhibin
    Li, Yunfeng
    JOURNAL OF BUON, 2016, 21 (01): : 80 - 86
  • [26] Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis
    Wehrle, Chase J.
    Chang, Jenny H.
    Gross, Abby R.
    Woo, Kimberly
    Naples, Robert
    Stackhouse, Kathryn A.
    Dahdaleh, Fadi
    Augustin, Toms
    Joyce, Daniel
    Simon, Robert
    Walsh, R. Matthew
    Naffouje, Samer A.
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2024, 38 (05): : 2602 - 2610
  • [27] Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for patients with low rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes
    Ge, Wei
    Shao, Li-Hua
    Qiu, Yu-Dong
    Chen, Gang
    JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY, 2025, 21 (01) : 60 - 65
  • [28] Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and the effect of learning curve
    Huang, Yu-Min
    Huang, Yan Jiun
    Wei, Po-Li
    MEDICINE, 2017, 96 (40)
  • [29] Robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study on surgical safety and functional outcomes
    Li, Tengteng
    Fu, Haixiao
    Wei, Fu
    Xuan, Zhang
    ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2024,
  • [30] Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis
    Yamanashi, Takahiro
    Miura, Hirohisa
    Tanaka, Toshimichi
    Watanabe, Akiko
    Goto, Takuya
    Yokoi, Keigo
    Kojo, Ken
    Niihara, Masahiro
    Hosoda, Kei
    Kaizu, Takashi
    Yamashita, Keishi
    Sato, Takeo
    Kumamoto, Yusuke
    Hiki, Naoki
    Naitoh, Takeshi
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY, 2022, 15 (04) : 753 - 764