P Tejedor1, F Sagias1, K Flashman1, Yeh Han Lee1, S Naqvi1, N Kandala2, Jim Khan3,4. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK. 2. Faculty of Sciences, School of Health Sciences & Social Work, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. 3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK. mkhan702@aol.com. 4. School of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK. mkhan702@aol.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), improving the quality of the surgery. We aim to compare the medium-term oncological outcomes of L-TME vs. robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who underwent L-TME or R-TME between 2011 and 2017. Patients presenting with metastatic disease or R1 resection were excluded. From a total of 680 patients, 136 cases of R-TME were matched based on age, gender, stage and time of follow-up with an equal number of patients who underwent L-TME. We compared 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Major complications were lower in the robotic group (13.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.04), highlighting the anastomotic leakage rate (7.4% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.01). The 3-year DFS rate for all stages was 69% for L-TME and 84% for R-TME (p = 0.02). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS was significantly higher in the R-TME group. OS was also significantly superior in the robotic group for every stage, reaching 86% in stage III. In the multivariate analysis, R-TME was a significant positive prognostic factor for distant metastasis (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.1, 0.6, p = 0.001) and OS (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.07, 0.4, p = 0.000). Moreover, major complications were also found to have a negative impact on OS (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.2, 21.6, p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: R-TME for rectal cancer can achieve better oncological outcomes compared with L-TME, especially in stage III rectal cancers. However, a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm these findings.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), improving the quality of the surgery. We aim to compare the medium-term oncological outcomes of L-TME vs. robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who underwent L-TME or R-TME between 2011 and 2017. Patients presenting with metastatic disease or R1 resection were excluded. From a total of 680 patients, 136 cases of R-TME were matched based on age, gender, stage and time of follow-up with an equal number of patients who underwent L-TME. We compared 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Major complications were lower in the robotic group (13.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.04), highlighting the anastomotic leakage rate (7.4% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.01). The 3-year DFS rate for all stages was 69% for L-TME and 84% for R-TME (p = 0.02). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS was significantly higher in the R-TME group. OS was also significantly superior in the robotic group for every stage, reaching 86% in stage III. In the multivariate analysis, R-TME was a significant positive prognostic factor for distant metastasis (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.1, 0.6, p = 0.001) and OS (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.07, 0.4, p = 0.000). Moreover, major complications were also found to have a negative impact on OS (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.2, 21.6, p = 0.000). CONCLUSION:R-TME for rectal cancer can achieve better oncological outcomes compared with L-TME, especially in stage III rectal cancers. However, a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm these findings.
Authors: Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Nunzio Velotti; Stefania Torino; Antonietta Vozza; Giovanni Sarnelli; Giovanni Aprea; Francesco Maione; Nicola Gennarelli; Mario Musella; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Andrew R L Stevenson; Michael J Solomon; Christopher S B Brown; John W Lumley; Peter Hewett; Andrew D Clouston; Val J Gebski; Kate Wilson; Wendy Hague; John Simes Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Min Soo Cho; Se Jin Baek; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Seung Hyuk Baik; Kang Young Lee; Nam Kyu Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Mária Macháčková; Matej Škrovina; Mário Szikhart; Lubomír Martínek; Vladimír Benčurik; Jiří Bartoš; Michal Dosoudil Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 1.627
Authors: T A Burghgraef; J C Hol; M L Rutgers; R M P H Crolla; A A W van Geloven; R Hompes; J W A Leijtens; F Polat; A Pronk; A B Smits; J B Tuynman; E G G Verdaasdonk; P M Verheijen; C Sietses; E C J Consten Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 5.344