Niclas Dohrn1,2, Mads Falk Klein3, Ismail Gögenur4. 1. Department of Surgery, Herlev University Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark. niclas.dohrn@gmail.dk. 2. Center for Surgical Science, Zealand University Hospital, Lykkebækvej 1, DK-4600, Koege, Denmark. niclas.dohrn@gmail.dk. 3. Department of Surgery, Herlev University Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark. 4. Center for Surgical Science, Zealand University Hospital, Lykkebækvej 1, DK-4600, Koege, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: On a national level, the minimally invasive approach is widely adopted in Denmark. The adoption of robotic colorectal surgery is increasing; however, the advantage of a robotic approach in right colectomy is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic right colectomy with laparoscopic right colectomy on a national level. METHODS: This was a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centers in Denmark in the period 2014-2018 treated with curative intend in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic right colectomy were identified. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounding, and the groups were compared on demographics, disease characteristics, operative data, and postoperative and pathology outcomes. Reporting was done in accordance with the STROBE statement. RESULTS: In total, 4002 patients were available for analysis. Propensity score matching in ratio 2:1 identified 718 laparoscopic and 359 robotic cases. After matching, we found a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group, (32.5 vs. 28.4, P < 0.001), while radicality, plane of dissection, and pathological disease stages showed no differences. There were no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality. Intracorporeal anastomosis (23.7% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) was more commonly performed with a robotic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic approach was associated with a significant higher lymph node yield and with similar postoperative morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach for right colectomy.
PURPOSE: On a national level, the minimally invasive approach is widely adopted in Denmark. The adoption of robotic colorectal surgery is increasing; however, the advantage of a robotic approach in right colectomy is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic right colectomy with laparoscopic right colectomy on a national level. METHODS: This was a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centers in Denmark in the period 2014-2018 treated with curative intend in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic right colectomy were identified. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounding, and the groups were compared on demographics, disease characteristics, operative data, and postoperative and pathology outcomes. Reporting was done in accordance with the STROBE statement. RESULTS: In total, 4002 patients were available for analysis. Propensity score matching in ratio 2:1 identified 718 laparoscopic and 359 robotic cases. After matching, we found a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group, (32.5 vs. 28.4, P < 0.001), while radicality, plane of dissection, and pathological disease stages showed no differences. There were no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality. Intracorporeal anastomosis (23.7% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) was more commonly performed with a robotic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic approach was associated with a significant higher lymph node yield and with similar postoperative morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach for right colectomy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal cancer; Laparoscopic surgery; Nationwide; Propensity score matching; Right colectomy; Robotic surgery
Authors: Nicholas P West; Eva J A Morris; Olorunda Rotimi; Alison Cairns; Paul J Finan; Philip Quirke Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-07-28 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Nicholas P West; Werner Hohenberger; Klaus Weber; Aristoteles Perrakis; Paul J Finan; Philip Quirke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter Tschann; Philipp Szeverinski; Markus P Weigl; Stephanie Rauch; Daniel Lechner; Stephanie Adler; Paolo N C Girotti; Patrick Clemens; Veronika Tschann; Jaroslav Presl; Philipp Schredl; Christof Mittermair; Tarkan Jäger; Klaus Emmanuel; Ingmar Königsrainer Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-24 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Anna Widder; Matthias Kelm; Joachim Reibetanz; Armin Wiegering; Niels Matthes; Christoph-Thomas Germer; Florian Seyfried; Sven Flemming Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.614