机器人与腹腔镜腹会阴切除术治疗术前化疗后的局部晚期直肠癌

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL In vivo Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.21873/invivo.13636
Tatsuki Watanabe, Kazuhito Sasaki, Hiroaki Nozawa, Koji Murono, Shigenobu Emoto, Hiroyuki Matsuzaki, Yuichiro Yokoyama, Shinya Abe, Yuzo Nagai, Takahide Shinagawa, Hirofumi Sonoda, Lim Sukchol, Soichiro Ishihara
{"title":"机器人与腹腔镜腹会阴切除术治疗术前化疗后的局部晚期直肠癌","authors":"Tatsuki Watanabe, Kazuhito Sasaki, Hiroaki Nozawa, Koji Murono, Shigenobu Emoto, Hiroyuki Matsuzaki, Yuichiro Yokoyama, Shinya Abe, Yuzo Nagai, Takahide Shinagawa, Hirofumi Sonoda, Lim Sukchol, Soichiro Ishihara","doi":"10.21873/invivo.13636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>The usefulness of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been reported; however, few reports exist on robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery to determine their usefulness in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who had undergone preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 43 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative CRT and robotic (22 patients) or laparoscopic APR (21 patients) between December 2012 and September 2022. We examined the short- and long-term outcomes in the robotic and laparoscopic groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median follow-up durations were 36 and 48 months for the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. No significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or overall complication rates were observed. However, the incidence of organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly lower in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (9.1% vs. 38.1%, p=0.034) and the 3-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (95% vs. 67%, p=0.029).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic APR was associated with a significantly lower rate of organ/space SSIs than the laparoscopic approach, indicating the usefulness of the robotic approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":13364,"journal":{"name":"In vivo","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11215614/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic <i>Versus</i> Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Following Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy.\",\"authors\":\"Tatsuki Watanabe, Kazuhito Sasaki, Hiroaki Nozawa, Koji Murono, Shigenobu Emoto, Hiroyuki Matsuzaki, Yuichiro Yokoyama, Shinya Abe, Yuzo Nagai, Takahide Shinagawa, Hirofumi Sonoda, Lim Sukchol, Soichiro Ishihara\",\"doi\":\"10.21873/invivo.13636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>The usefulness of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been reported; however, few reports exist on robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery to determine their usefulness in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who had undergone preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 43 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative CRT and robotic (22 patients) or laparoscopic APR (21 patients) between December 2012 and September 2022. We examined the short- and long-term outcomes in the robotic and laparoscopic groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median follow-up durations were 36 and 48 months for the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. No significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or overall complication rates were observed. However, the incidence of organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly lower in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (9.1% vs. 38.1%, p=0.034) and the 3-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (95% vs. 67%, p=0.029).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic APR was associated with a significantly lower rate of organ/space SSIs than the laparoscopic approach, indicating the usefulness of the robotic approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"In vivo\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11215614/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"In vivo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13636\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"In vivo","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13636","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:有报道称,与腹腔镜手术相比,机器人手术对直肠癌很有用;但关于机器人腹腔镜切除术(APR)的报道很少。本研究的目的是比较机器人手术和腹腔镜手术的疗效,以确定它们对术前接受过放化疗(CRT)的局部晚期直肠癌患者是否有用:这项回顾性研究纳入了43例局部晚期直肠癌患者,他们在2012年12月至2022年9月期间接受了术前CRT和机器人(22例)或腹腔镜APR(21例)手术。我们研究了机器人组和腹腔镜组的短期和长期疗效:机器人组和腹腔镜组的中位随访时间分别为36个月和48个月。手术时间、术中失血量和总体并发症发生率无明显差异。然而,机器人手术组器官/空间手术部位感染(SSI)的发生率明显低于腹腔镜手术组(9.1% vs. 38.1%,P=0.034),机器人手术组的3年总生存率明显高于腹腔镜手术组(95% vs. 67%,P=0.029):结论:与腹腔镜方法相比,机器人APR的器官/间隙SSI发生率明显较低,这表明了机器人方法的实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Following Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy.

Background/aim: The usefulness of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been reported; however, few reports exist on robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery to determine their usefulness in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who had undergone preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

Patients and methods: This retrospective study included 43 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative CRT and robotic (22 patients) or laparoscopic APR (21 patients) between December 2012 and September 2022. We examined the short- and long-term outcomes in the robotic and laparoscopic groups.

Results: The median follow-up durations were 36 and 48 months for the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. No significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or overall complication rates were observed. However, the incidence of organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly lower in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (9.1% vs. 38.1%, p=0.034) and the 3-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (95% vs. 67%, p=0.029).

Conclusion: Robotic APR was associated with a significantly lower rate of organ/space SSIs than the laparoscopic approach, indicating the usefulness of the robotic approach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
In vivo
In vivo 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
330
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IN VIVO is an international peer-reviewed journal designed to bring together original high quality works and reviews on experimental and clinical biomedical research within the frames of physiology, pathology and disease management. The topics of IN VIVO include: 1. Experimental development and application of new diagnostic and therapeutic procedures; 2. Pharmacological and toxicological evaluation of new drugs, drug combinations and drug delivery systems; 3. Clinical trials; 4. Development and characterization of models of biomedical research; 5. Cancer diagnosis and treatment; 6. Immunotherapy and vaccines; 7. Radiotherapy, Imaging; 8. Tissue engineering, Regenerative medicine; 9. Carcinogenesis.
期刊最新文献
17-AAG Induces Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress-mediated Apoptosis in Breast Cancer Cells, Possibly Through PERK/eIF2α Up-regulation. A Case of Transanal Endoscopic Excision for Rectal Tumor Using Surgical Instruments With Multi-jointed Structures. A Rapidly Developing Nodule in a Patient With Hairy Cell Leukemia in Remission: Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Case Report. Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Addition to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Amine Oxidase, Copper Containing 3 (Aoc3) Knockout Mice Are More Prone to DSS-induced Colitis and Colonic Tumorigenesis.
×
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