George Q Zhang1, Rebecca Sahyoun1, Miloslawa Stem1, Brian D Lo1, Ashwani Rajput1,2,3, Jonathan E Efron1, Chady Atallah1, Bashar Safar4. 1. Department of Surgery, Colorectal Research Unit, Ravitch Colorectal Division, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Colorectal Research Unit, Ravitch Colorectal Division, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. bsafar@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.
Authors: H Jaap Bonjer; Charlotte L Deijen; Gabor A Abis; Miguel A Cuesta; Martijn H G M van der Pas; Elly S M de Lange-de Klerk; Antonio M Lacy; Willem A Bemelman; John Andersson; Eva Angenete; Jacob Rosenberg; Alois Fuerst; Eva Haglind Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Deborah S Keller; Zhamak Khorgami; Brian Swendseid; Bradley J Champagne; Harry L Reynolds; Sharon L Stein; Conor P Delaney Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Martijn Hgm van der Pas; Eva Haglind; Miguel A Cuesta; Alois Fürst; Antonio M Lacy; Wim Cj Hop; Hendrik Jaap Bonjer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: James Fleshman; Megan Branda; Daniel J Sargent; Anne Marie Boller; Virgilio George; Maher Abbas; Walter R Peters; Dipen Maun; George Chang; Alan Herline; Alessandro Fichera; Matthew Mutch; Steven Wexner; Mark Whiteford; John Marks; Elisa Birnbaum; David Margolin; David Larson; Peter Marcello; Mitchell Posner; Thomas Read; John Monson; Sherry M Wren; Peter W T Pisters; Heidi Nelson Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew R L Stevenson; Michael J Solomon; John W Lumley; Peter Hewett; Andrew D Clouston; Val J Gebski; Lucy Davies; Kate Wilson; Wendy Hague; John Simes Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Simon S M Ng; Ka Lau Leung; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Jimmy C M Li; Anthony Y B Teoh; Wing Wa Leung Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-04-05 Impact factor: 5.344