Comparison of the quality of total mesorectal excision after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study.

Keehyun Park, Sohyun Kim, Hye Won Lee, Sung Uk Bae, Seong Kyu Baek, Woon Kyung Jeong
{"title":"Comparison of the quality of total mesorectal excision after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study.","authors":"Keehyun Park,&nbsp;Sohyun Kim,&nbsp;Hye Won Lee,&nbsp;Sung Uk Bae,&nbsp;Seong Kyu Baek,&nbsp;Woon Kyung Jeong","doi":"10.14216/kjco.21013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and disease-free and overall survival rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From January 2015 to December 2018, 234 patients underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer at two centers. Ultimately, 201 patients were enrolled. To control for different demographic factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were generated with the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative radiation. Finally, 134 patients were matched with 67 patients in the robotic surgery group and 67 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in the pathologic stages between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. Distal margin involvement was only observed in the robotic surgery group (1/67, 1.5%). Circumferential resection margin involvement was not different between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (3/67 [4.5%] and 4/67 [6.0%], respectively, P=1.000). The quality of TME (complete, nearly complete, and incomplete) was similar between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (88.0%, 6.0%, 6.0% and 79.1%, 9.0%, 11.9%, respectively, P=0.358). The disease-free and overall survival rates were not significantly different between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quality of TME and disease-free and overall survival rates between the two surgeries were similar. There was no oncologic advantage of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":74045,"journal":{"name":"Korean journal of clinical oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/61/30/kjco-17-2-82.PMC9942754.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14216/kjco.21013","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

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and disease-free and overall survival rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for rectal cancer.

Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, 234 patients underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer at two centers. Ultimately, 201 patients were enrolled. To control for different demographic factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were generated with the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative radiation. Finally, 134 patients were matched with 67 patients in the robotic surgery group and 67 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group.

Results: There was no significant difference in the pathologic stages between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. Distal margin involvement was only observed in the robotic surgery group (1/67, 1.5%). Circumferential resection margin involvement was not different between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (3/67 [4.5%] and 4/67 [6.0%], respectively, P=1.000). The quality of TME (complete, nearly complete, and incomplete) was similar between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (88.0%, 6.0%, 6.0% and 79.1%, 9.0%, 11.9%, respectively, P=0.358). The disease-free and overall survival rates were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusion: The quality of TME and disease-free and overall survival rates between the two surgeries were similar. There was no oncologic advantage of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
直肠癌机器人手术和腹腔镜手术后全肠系膜切除质量的比较:一项多中心、倾向评分匹配的研究。
目的:本研究旨在评估和比较机器人和腹腔镜手术治疗直肠癌的全肠系膜切除术(TME)的质量、无病生存率和总生存率。方法:2015年1月至2018年12月,234例患者在两个中心接受了治愈性机器人或腹腔镜直肠癌手术。最终,201名患者入组。为了控制两组中不同的人口统计学因素,倾向评分匹配采用1:1的比例。根据基线特征生成倾向评分,包括年龄、性别、体重指数、美国麻醉医师学会评分、既往腹部手术、肿瘤位置、术前化疗和术前放疗。最终,134例患者与机器人手术组67例患者和腹腔镜手术组67例患者进行匹配。结果:机器人手术组与腹腔镜手术组在病理分期上无明显差异。远端缘受累仅在机器人手术组中观察到(1/ 67,1.5%)。机器人手术组和腹腔镜手术组环切缘受累无差异(分别为3/67[4.5%]和4/67 [6.0%],P=1.000)。机器人手术组与腹腔镜手术组TME质量(完整、近乎完整、不完整)相似(分别为88.0%、6.0%、6.0%和79.1%、9.0%、11.9%,P=0.358)。两组间无病生存率和总生存率无显著差异。结论:两种手术的TME质量、无病生存率和总生存率相似。与腹腔镜手术相比,机器人手术在直肠癌的肿瘤学上没有优势。
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
Association of tumor budding and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes with clinicopathological parameters in gallbladder carcinoma. Clinical course of pancreas cancer diagnosed after spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with borderline lesion: two case reports. Measurement of human peritoneal surface area using artificial intelligence software in abdominal computed tomography. Pancreatoduodenectomy with colon-last approach for advanced pancreatic head cancer. Prediction of the minimum amount of anti-adhesive agent required for entire intra-abdominal cavity using fluorescent dye.
×
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