Open versus robotic-assisted techniques for multivisceral pelvic resections of locally advanced or recurrent colorectal and anal cancers: short-term outcomes from a single centre.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Techniques in Coloproctology Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1007/s10151-024-03044-9
J Wyatt, E O'Connell, M Choi, S G Powell, V Hanchanale, S Ahmed, M A Javed
{"title":"Open versus robotic-assisted techniques for multivisceral pelvic resections of locally advanced or recurrent colorectal and anal cancers: short-term outcomes from a single centre.","authors":"J Wyatt, E O'Connell, M Choi, S G Powell, V Hanchanale, S Ahmed, M A Javed","doi":"10.1007/s10151-024-03044-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pelvic exenterations are now established as a standard of care for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Traditionally, these radical and complex operations have been performed via an open approach, but with the increasing expertise in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), there is scope to perform such cases robotically. This study compares outcomes from open and RAS pelvic exenterations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective observational study includes all pelvic exenterations for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancers performed in a single centre between September 2018 and September 2023. Cases were grouped into open or RAS surgery and classified in terms of operative extent and complexity. The primary outcome was resection margin status. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity, length of stay and blood loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three patients were included. Nineteen (57.6%) cases utilised an open technique, and 14 (42.4%) used RAS. Patient characteristics and operative complexity were equivalent between groups. R0 rate (63.1% vs 71.4%, p = 0.719), median haemoglobin drop (19 (11-30) g/L vs 13 (5-26) g/L, p = 0.208) and postoperative morbidity (18/19 (94.7%) vs 9/14 (64.3%), p = 0.062) were equivalent. Length of stay (16.0 days (8-25) vs 9.5 days (6-16), p = 0.047) was shorter in the RAS group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Short-term surgical and histopathological outcomes are equivalent in this small cohort of patients. This study suggests that RAS may be a safe and effective method for performing pelvic exenterations for colorectal malignancies. Larger-scale and robustly designed prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings and report on long-term oncological outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"28 1","pages":"161"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11576618/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-03044-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pelvic exenterations are now established as a standard of care for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Traditionally, these radical and complex operations have been performed via an open approach, but with the increasing expertise in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), there is scope to perform such cases robotically. This study compares outcomes from open and RAS pelvic exenterations.

Methods: This retrospective observational study includes all pelvic exenterations for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancers performed in a single centre between September 2018 and September 2023. Cases were grouped into open or RAS surgery and classified in terms of operative extent and complexity. The primary outcome was resection margin status. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity, length of stay and blood loss.

Results: Thirty-three patients were included. Nineteen (57.6%) cases utilised an open technique, and 14 (42.4%) used RAS. Patient characteristics and operative complexity were equivalent between groups. R0 rate (63.1% vs 71.4%, p = 0.719), median haemoglobin drop (19 (11-30) g/L vs 13 (5-26) g/L, p = 0.208) and postoperative morbidity (18/19 (94.7%) vs 9/14 (64.3%), p = 0.062) were equivalent. Length of stay (16.0 days (8-25) vs 9.5 days (6-16), p = 0.047) was shorter in the RAS group.

Conclusions: Short-term surgical and histopathological outcomes are equivalent in this small cohort of patients. This study suggests that RAS may be a safe and effective method for performing pelvic exenterations for colorectal malignancies. Larger-scale and robustly designed prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings and report on long-term oncological outcomes.

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
局部晚期或复发性结直肠癌和肛门癌的多脏器盆腔切除术中,开放式与机器人辅助技术的比较:一个中心的短期疗效。
背景:骨盆外扩手术是目前治疗局部晚期和复发性直肠癌的标准方法。传统上,这些复杂的根治性手术都是通过开腹方式进行的,但随着机器人辅助手术(RAS)技术的不断发展,机器人辅助手术也有了应用的空间。本研究比较了开放式和机器人辅助骨盆外展手术的结果:这项回顾性观察研究包括2018年9月至2023年9月期间在一个中心进行的所有局部晚期或复发性结直肠癌盆腔外翻手术。病例分为开放手术和 RAS 手术,并根据手术范围和复杂程度进行分类。主要结果是切除边缘状态。次要结果为术后发病率、住院时间和失血量:结果:共纳入 33 名患者。19例(57.6%)采用开放技术,14例(42.4%)采用RAS技术。两组患者的特征和手术复杂程度相当。R0率(63.1% vs 71.4%,p = 0.719)、中位血红蛋白下降率(19 (11-30) g/L vs 13 (5-26) g/L,p = 0.208)和术后发病率(18/19 (94.7%) vs 9/14 (64.3%),p = 0.062)相当。RAS组的住院时间(16.0天(8-25)对9.5天(6-16),p = 0.047)更短:结论:在这一小批患者中,短期手术和组织病理学结果相当。这项研究表明,RAS 可能是一种安全有效的结直肠恶性肿瘤盆腔外切术方法。要证实这些初步研究结果并报告长期肿瘤学结果,还需要进行更大规模、设计更严谨的前瞻性研究。
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
Techniques in Coloproctology
Techniques in Coloproctology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.
期刊最新文献
Laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation (video). Predictors of perioperative morbidity in elderly patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection. Combined versus conventional approaches in laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy: a retrospective analysis. Best clinical practice recommendations for the management of symptomatic hemorrhoids via laser hemorrhoidoplasty: the LHP recommendations. Preoperative anorectal manometry as a predictor of function after ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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