Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis

Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a recently developed minimally invasive surgery used in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. However, its safety and feasibility remain undiscussed and controversial. This study reported the clinical outcomes and prognostic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Dongning, Luo, Rui, Wan, Zhikai, Zhu, Weiquan, He, Penghui, Ye, Shanping, Tang, Cheng, Lei, Xiong, Li, Taiyuan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32733103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69830-1
_version_ 1783564933994119168
author Liu, Dongning
Luo, Rui
Wan, Zhikai
Zhu, Weiquan
He, Penghui
Ye, Shanping
Tang, Cheng
Lei, Xiong
Li, Taiyuan
author_facet Liu, Dongning
Luo, Rui
Wan, Zhikai
Zhu, Weiquan
He, Penghui
Ye, Shanping
Tang, Cheng
Lei, Xiong
Li, Taiyuan
author_sort Liu, Dongning
collection PubMed
description Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a recently developed minimally invasive surgery used in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. However, its safety and feasibility remain undiscussed and controversial. This study reported the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors pertaining to traditional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone against that of robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction to provide a discussion on this issue. 49 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction and 49 matched patients who underwent conventional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection were systematically analyzed in this study. Regarding the baseline characteristics, after matching, no significant differences were observed between the natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) group and the robotic assisted rectal cancer resection (RARC) group. Patients in the NOSE group had a reduced visual analog scale (p < 0.001), passed flatus more quickly (p = 0.002) and suffered less surgical stress than those in the RARC group. Moreover, 4 complications were observed in the NOSE group and 7 complications in the RARC group with no significant difference (p = 0.337) in terms of complications. The two groups had a similar survival outcomes, where the 3-year overall survival (p = 0.738) and 3-year progression-free survival (p = 0.986) were all comparable between the two groups. Histological differentiation and T stage could be regarded as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival. Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgery for patients suffering from rectal cancer as it encompasses considerable several advantages. Histological differentiation and T stage may serve as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7392890
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73928902020-07-31 Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis Liu, Dongning Luo, Rui Wan, Zhikai Zhu, Weiquan He, Penghui Ye, Shanping Tang, Cheng Lei, Xiong Li, Taiyuan Sci Rep Article Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a recently developed minimally invasive surgery used in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. However, its safety and feasibility remain undiscussed and controversial. This study reported the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors pertaining to traditional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone against that of robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction to provide a discussion on this issue. 49 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction and 49 matched patients who underwent conventional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection were systematically analyzed in this study. Regarding the baseline characteristics, after matching, no significant differences were observed between the natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) group and the robotic assisted rectal cancer resection (RARC) group. Patients in the NOSE group had a reduced visual analog scale (p < 0.001), passed flatus more quickly (p = 0.002) and suffered less surgical stress than those in the RARC group. Moreover, 4 complications were observed in the NOSE group and 7 complications in the RARC group with no significant difference (p = 0.337) in terms of complications. The two groups had a similar survival outcomes, where the 3-year overall survival (p = 0.738) and 3-year progression-free survival (p = 0.986) were all comparable between the two groups. Histological differentiation and T stage could be regarded as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival. Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgery for patients suffering from rectal cancer as it encompasses considerable several advantages. Histological differentiation and T stage may serve as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7392890/ /pubmed/32733103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69830-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Liu, Dongning
Luo, Rui
Wan, Zhikai
Zhu, Weiquan
He, Penghui
Ye, Shanping
Tang, Cheng
Lei, Xiong
Li, Taiyuan
Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis
title Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis
title_full Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis
title_fullStr Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis
title_short Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis
title_sort clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32733103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69830-1
work_keys_str_mv AT liudongning clinicaloutcomesandprognosticfactorsofroboticassistedrectalcancerresectionaloneversusroboticrectalcancerresectionwithnaturalorificeextractionamatchedanalysis
AT luorui clinicaloutcomesandprognosticfactorsofroboticassistedrectalcancerresectionaloneversusroboticrectalcancerresectionwithnaturalorificeextractionamatchedanalysis
AT wanzhikai clinicaloutcomesandprognosticfactorsofroboticassistedrectalcancerresectionaloneversusroboticrectalcancerresectionwithnaturalorificeextractionamatchedanalysis
AT zhuweiquan clinicaloutcomesandprognosticfactorsofroboticassistedrectalcancerresectionaloneversusroboticrectalcancerresectionwithnaturalorificeextractionamatchedanalysis
AT hepenghui clinicaloutcomesandprognosticfactorsofroboticassistedrectalcancerresectionaloneversusroboticrectalcancerresectionwithnaturalorificeextractionamatchedanalysis
AT yeshanping clinicaloutcomesandprognosticfactorsofroboticassistedrectalcancerresectionaloneversusroboticrectalcancerresectionwithnaturalorificeextractionamatchedanalysis
AT tangcheng clinicaloutcomesandprognosticfactorsofroboticassistedrectalcancerresectionaloneversusroboticrectalcancerresectionwithnaturalorificeextractionamatchedanalysis
AT leixiong clinicaloutcomesandprognosticfactorsofroboticassistedrectalcancerresectionaloneversusroboticrectalcancerresectionwithnaturalorificeextractionamatchedanalysis
AT litaiyuan clinicaloutcomesandprognosticfactorsofroboticassistedrectalcancerresectionaloneversusroboticrectalcancerresectionwithnaturalorificeextractionamatchedanalysis

Ejemplares similares