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.
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.
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.