Literature DB >> 31820161

Trends and outcomes of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in the USA: maintaining perioperative and oncologic safety.

Ioannis T Konstantinidis1, Philip Ituarte2, Yanghee Woo2, Susanne G Warner2, Kurt Melstrom2, Jae Kim2, Gagandeep Singh2, Byrne Lee2, Yuman Fong2, Laleh G Melstrom3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) continues to gain traction as a feasible approach for the operative management of gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. The aim of this study is to quantify national trends, perioperative and oncologic outcomes of MIS for the most common GI malignancies including the esophagus, stomach, pancreas, colon, and rectum. We hypothesize that with more widespread use of MIS techniques, perioperative outcomes and oncologic resection quality will remain preserved.
METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2010-2014) was utilized to assess perioperative outcomes and pathologic quality of MIS (robotic and laparoscopic) compared to open, in patients who underwent resection for cancers of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas, colon, and rectum. Multilevel logistic regression models were constructed to identify independent factors associated with postoperative and long-term outcomes.
RESULTS: Data from 11,023 esophageal, 30,664 gastric, 30,689 pancreas, 260,669 colon, and 52,239 rectal resections were analyzed. Although laparoscopy is the most prevalent MIS approach, the number of robotic resections increased nearly fourfold from 2010 to 2014 in all organ sites (increase by factor: esophagus: 3.8, stomach: 4.4, pancreas: 4.4, colon: 3.8 and rectum: 4). The number of laparoscopic resections increased at a slower rate (factor: 1.3-1.9), whereas the number of open resections decreased (factor: 0.67-0.77). Patients who underwent robotic-assisted resections were younger for stomach and colorectal resections and with lower Charlson Comorbidity Index across all sites. Patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic resections had shorter hospitalizations, fewer readmissions (with the exception of rectal resections) and lower postoperative mortality at 90 days. Robotic-assisted resections had comparable negative margin resections and number of lymph nodes to laparoscopic and open resections across all sites.
CONCLUSION: The utilization of robotic-assisted resections of GI cancers is rapidly increasing with more frequent use in younger and healthier patients. This study demonstrates that with the rising utilization of robotic-assisted resections, perioperative outcomes and oncologic safety have not been compromised.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gastrointestinal cancers; Oncologic outcomes; Postoperative outcomes; Robotic surgery; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31820161     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07284-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  9 in total

1.  Worldwide diffusion of robotic approach in general surgery.

Authors:  Rong Liu; Qu Liu; Zizheng Wang
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2021-01-02

Review 2.  Robotic operations in urgent general surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alexander Reinisch; Juliane Liese; Winfried Padberg; Frank Ulrich
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-06-21

3.  Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps.

Authors:  Jacob Ghotbi; Mushegh Sahakyan; Kjetil Søreide; Åsmund Avdem Fretland; Bård Røsok; Tore Tholfsen; Anne Waage; Bjørn Edwin; Knut Jørgen Labori; Sheraz Yaqub; Dyre Kleive
Journal:  Oncol Ther       Date:  2022-07-12

4.  Effects of surgical approach on short- and long-term outcomes in early-stage rectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score-weighted cohort study.

Authors:  William C Kethman; Katherine E Bingmer; Asya Ofshteyn; Ronald Charles; Sharon L Stein; David Dietz; Emily Steinhagen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 3.453

5.  Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Short-Term Outcome of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Conventional Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Thoracic Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Takeo Fujita; Kazuma Sato; Asako Ozaki; Tomohiro Akutsu; Hisashi Fujiwara; Takashi Kojima; Hiroyuki Daiko
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 3.282

6.  Robotic surgery facilitates complex minimally invasive operations.

Authors:  Ray K Chihara; Min P Kim; Edward Y Chan
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Short- and long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by the same surgical team: a propensity score matching analysis.

Authors:  Yulong Tian; Shougen Cao; Ying Kong; Shuai Shen; Zhaojian Niu; Jian Zhang; Dong Chen; Haitao Jiang; Liang Lv; Xiaodong Liu; Zequn Li; Hao Zhong; Yanbing Zhou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  The art of robotic colonic resection: a review of progress in the past 5 years.

Authors:  Hongyi Liu; Maolin Xu; Rong Liu; Baoqing Jia; Zhiming Zhao
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2021-01-22

Review 9.  Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Kurt A Melstrom; Andreas M Kaiser
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 5.742

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.