Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excisions: A Propensity-Score Matched Cohort study of 5-year survival outcomes

R. Duhoky, M. Rutgers, T. Burghgraef, S. Stefan, S. Masum, G. Piozzi, Filippos Sagias, Jim S Khan
{"title":"Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excisions: A Propensity-Score Matched Cohort study of 5-year survival outcomes","authors":"R. Duhoky, M. Rutgers, T. Burghgraef, S. Stefan, S. Masum, G. Piozzi, Filippos Sagias, Jim S Khan","doi":"10.1097/as9.0000000000000404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n To compare long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) for rectal cancer in a tertiary center.\n \n \n \n Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has comparable long-term outcomes to the open approach, with several advantages in short-term outcomes. However, it has significant technical limitations, which the robotic approach aims to overcome.\n \n \n \n We included patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic TME surgery between 2013 and 2021. The groups were compared after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and short-term surgical and patient-related outcomes.\n \n \n \n A total of 594 patients were included, and after propensity-score matching 215 patients remained in each group. There was a significant difference in 5-year OS (72.4% for laparoscopy vs 81.7% for robotic, P = 0.029), but no difference in 5-year LR (4.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.850), DR (16.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.390), or DFS (63.9% vs 74.4%, P = 0.086). The robotic group had significantly less conversion (3.7% vs 0.5%, P = 0.046), shorter length of stay [7.0 (6.0–13.0) vs 6.0 (4.0–8.0), P < 0.001), and less postoperative complications (63.5% vs 50.7%, P = 0.010).\n \n \n \n This study shows a correlation between higher 5-year OS and comparable long-term oncological outcomes for robotic TME surgery compared to the laparoscopic approach. Furthermore, lower conversion rates, a shorter length of stay, and a less minor postoperative complications were observed. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is a safe and favorable alternative to the traditional approaches.\n","PeriodicalId":503165,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgery Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgery Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/as9.0000000000000404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To compare long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) for rectal cancer in a tertiary center. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has comparable long-term outcomes to the open approach, with several advantages in short-term outcomes. However, it has significant technical limitations, which the robotic approach aims to overcome. We included patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic TME surgery between 2013 and 2021. The groups were compared after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and short-term surgical and patient-related outcomes. A total of 594 patients were included, and after propensity-score matching 215 patients remained in each group. There was a significant difference in 5-year OS (72.4% for laparoscopy vs 81.7% for robotic, P = 0.029), but no difference in 5-year LR (4.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.850), DR (16.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.390), or DFS (63.9% vs 74.4%, P = 0.086). The robotic group had significantly less conversion (3.7% vs 0.5%, P = 0.046), shorter length of stay [7.0 (6.0–13.0) vs 6.0 (4.0–8.0), P < 0.001), and less postoperative complications (63.5% vs 50.7%, P = 0.010). This study shows a correlation between higher 5-year OS and comparable long-term oncological outcomes for robotic TME surgery compared to the laparoscopic approach. Furthermore, lower conversion rates, a shorter length of stay, and a less minor postoperative complications were observed. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is a safe and favorable alternative to the traditional approaches.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机器人与腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术的长期疗效:倾向分数匹配队列研究的五年生存结果
目的:在一家三级医疗中心比较腹腔镜和机器人全直肠系膜切除术(TME)治疗直肠癌的长期疗效。 腹腔镜直肠癌手术的长期疗效与开腹手术不相上下,在短期疗效方面也有一些优势。然而,腹腔镜直肠癌手术在技术上有很大的局限性,而机器人手术正是要克服这些局限性。 我们纳入了2013年至2021年期间接受腹腔镜和机器人TME手术的患者。两组患者经过倾向分数匹配后进行比较。主要结果是5年总生存率(OS)。次要结局为局部复发(LR)、远处复发(DR)、无病生存(DFS)以及短期手术和患者相关结局。 共纳入了 594 名患者,经过倾向分数匹配后,每组仍有 215 名患者。腹腔镜组的5年OS(72.4% vs 81.7%,P = 0.029)有显著差异,但5年LR(4.7% vs 5.2%,P = 0.850)、DR(16.9% vs 13.5%,P = 0.390)或DFS(63.9% vs 74.4%,P = 0.086)无差异。机器人组的转归率明显较低(3.7% vs 0.5%,P = 0.046),住院时间较短[7.0 (6.0-13.0) vs 6.0 (4.0-8.0),P < 0.001],术后并发症较少(63.5% vs 50.7%,P = 0.010)。 这项研究表明,与腹腔镜方法相比,机器人TME手术的5年生存率更高,长期肿瘤治疗效果也相当。此外,还观察到较低的转换率、较短的住院时间和较少的术后并发症。与传统方法相比,机器人直肠癌手术是一种安全、有利的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Within-hospital Temporal Clustering of Postoperative Complications and Implications for Safety Monitoring and Benchmarking Using ACS-NSQIP Data Association Between Surgeon Sex and Days Alive at Home Following Surgery: A Population-Based Cohort Study Response to Comment by Dr. Kuang on Our Manuscript “Immediate Oral Refeeding in Patients With Mild and Moderate Acute Pancreatitis: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial (PADI trial)” Visual Mapping of Operating Theater Team Dynamics and Communication for Reflexive Feedback and Surgical Practice Optimization Surgical Outcomes and Sociodemographic Disparities Across All Races: An ACS-NSQIP and NHIS Multi-Institutional Analysis of Over 7.5 Million Patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1