Cargando…

Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China

BACKGROUND: Reports in the field of robotic surgery for rectal cancer are increasing year by year. However, most of these studies enroll patients at a relatively early stage and have small sample sizes. In fact, studies only on patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and with relatively...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ye, Shan-Ping, Zhu, Wei-Quan, Liu, Dong-Ning, Lei, Xiong, Jiang, Qun-Guang, Hu, Hui-Min, Tang, Bo, He, Peng-Hui, Gao, Geng-Mei, Tang, He-Chun, Shi, Jun, Li, Tai-Yuan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32368320
http://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v12.i4.424
_version_ 1783527845007458304
author Ye, Shan-Ping
Zhu, Wei-Quan
Liu, Dong-Ning
Lei, Xiong
Jiang, Qun-Guang
Hu, Hui-Min
Tang, Bo
He, Peng-Hui
Gao, Geng-Mei
Tang, He-Chun
Shi, Jun
Li, Tai-Yuan
author_facet Ye, Shan-Ping
Zhu, Wei-Quan
Liu, Dong-Ning
Lei, Xiong
Jiang, Qun-Guang
Hu, Hui-Min
Tang, Bo
He, Peng-Hui
Gao, Geng-Mei
Tang, He-Chun
Shi, Jun
Li, Tai-Yuan
author_sort Ye, Shan-Ping
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Reports in the field of robotic surgery for rectal cancer are increasing year by year. However, most of these studies enroll patients at a relatively early stage and have small sample sizes. In fact, studies only on patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and with relatively large sample sizes are lacking. AIM: To investigate whether the short-term outcomes differed between robotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) and laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy (LAP) for LARC. METHODS: The clinicopathological data of patients with LARC who underwent robotic- or laparoscopic-assisted radical surgery between January 2015 and October 2019 were collected retrospectively. To reduce patient selection bias, we used the clinical baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients as covariates for propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LAP group, the RAP group had less intraoperative blood loss, lower volume of pelvic cavity drainage, less time to remove the pelvic drainage tube and urinary catheter, longer distal resection margin and lower rates of conversion (P < 0.05). However, the time to recover bowel function, the harvested lymph nodes, the postoperative length of hospital stay, and the rate of unplanned readmission within 30 days postoperatively showed no difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The rates of total complications and all individual complications were similar between the RAP and LAP groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study indicated that RAP is a safe and feasible method for LARC with better short-term outcomes than LAP, but we have to admit that the clinically significant of part of indicators are relatively small in the practical situation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7191331
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71913312020-05-04 Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China Ye, Shan-Ping Zhu, Wei-Quan Liu, Dong-Ning Lei, Xiong Jiang, Qun-Guang Hu, Hui-Min Tang, Bo He, Peng-Hui Gao, Geng-Mei Tang, He-Chun Shi, Jun Li, Tai-Yuan World J Gastrointest Oncol Retrospective Cohort Study BACKGROUND: Reports in the field of robotic surgery for rectal cancer are increasing year by year. However, most of these studies enroll patients at a relatively early stage and have small sample sizes. In fact, studies only on patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and with relatively large sample sizes are lacking. AIM: To investigate whether the short-term outcomes differed between robotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) and laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy (LAP) for LARC. METHODS: The clinicopathological data of patients with LARC who underwent robotic- or laparoscopic-assisted radical surgery between January 2015 and October 2019 were collected retrospectively. To reduce patient selection bias, we used the clinical baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients as covariates for propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LAP group, the RAP group had less intraoperative blood loss, lower volume of pelvic cavity drainage, less time to remove the pelvic drainage tube and urinary catheter, longer distal resection margin and lower rates of conversion (P < 0.05). However, the time to recover bowel function, the harvested lymph nodes, the postoperative length of hospital stay, and the rate of unplanned readmission within 30 days postoperatively showed no difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The rates of total complications and all individual complications were similar between the RAP and LAP groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study indicated that RAP is a safe and feasible method for LARC with better short-term outcomes than LAP, but we have to admit that the clinically significant of part of indicators are relatively small in the practical situation. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2020-04-15 2020-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7191331/ /pubmed/32368320 http://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v12.i4.424 Text en ©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
spellingShingle Retrospective Cohort Study
Ye, Shan-Ping
Zhu, Wei-Quan
Liu, Dong-Ning
Lei, Xiong
Jiang, Qun-Guang
Hu, Hui-Min
Tang, Bo
He, Peng-Hui
Gao, Geng-Mei
Tang, He-Chun
Shi, Jun
Li, Tai-Yuan
Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China
title Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China
title_full Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China
title_fullStr Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China
title_full_unstemmed Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China
title_short Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China
title_sort robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in china
topic Retrospective Cohort Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32368320
http://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v12.i4.424
work_keys_str_mv AT yeshanping roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT zhuweiquan roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT liudongning roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT leixiong roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT jiangqunguang roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT huhuimin roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT tangbo roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT hepenghui roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT gaogengmei roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT tanghechun roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT shijun roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina
AT litaiyuan roboticvslaparoscopicassistedproctectomyforlocallyadvancedrectalcancerbasedonpropensityscorematchingshorttermoutcomesatacolorectalcenterinchina