Literature DB >> 35147841

Assessing the role of robotic proctectomy in obese patients: a contemporary NSQIP analysis.

Alexa C Glencer1, Joseph A Lin1, Karen Trang1, Anya Greenberg2, Kimberly S Kirkwood1, Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam1, Ankit Sarin3,4.   

Abstract

Robotic proctectomy has become increasingly popular for both benign and malignant indications. The purpose of this study was to determine if the robotic approach has a distinct advantage over laparoscopy in obese patients, which has been suggested by previous subgroup analyses. We performed a retrospective review of 2016-2018 National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data to compare outcomes between patients who underwent robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy, stratified by Body Mass Index (BMI) subgroups. We also compared outcomes of converted minimally invasive proctectomy to planned open operations. Four thousand four hundred eighteen (69.3%) patients underwent laparoscopic proctectomy, and 1956 (30.7%) patients underwent robotic proctectomy. Robotic proctectomy was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic proctectomy (5.1% vs 12.3%; p = 0.002), and this relationship was maintained on an adjusted model. Obese (BMI > 30) patients were more likely to require conversion in both laparoscopic and robotic groups with the greatest difference in the conversion rate in the obese subgroup. Patients who underwent conversion had higher composite morbidity compared to patients who underwent planned open operations (50.8% vs 41.3%; p < 0.001). And among patients with rectal cancer, robotic proctectomy was associated with a greater incidence of positive radial tumor margins compared to laparoscopic proctectomy (8.0% vs 6.4%; p = 0.039), driven primarily by the obese subgroup. Our study demonstrates that robotic proctectomy is associated with a 7% lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopy and that obese patients are more likely to require conversion than non-obese patients. Among obese patients with rectal cancer, we identified an increased risk of positive radial margins with robotic compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conversion; NSQIP; Obese patients; Robotic proctectomy

Year:  2022        PMID: 35147841      PMCID: PMC9365884          DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01380-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  16 in total

1.  Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer: analysis of 71 patients from a single institution.

Authors:  Philip M Spanheimer; John G Armstrong; Sunyang Fu; Junlin Liao; Scott E Regenbogen; John C Byrn
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.547

2.  Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence.

Authors:  Arif Ahmad; Zoha F Ahmad; Jared D Carleton; Ashish Agarwala
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

Authors:  Caiwen Han; Peijing Yan; Wutang Jing; Meixuan Li; Binbin Du; Moubo Si; Jia Yang; Kehu Yang; Hui Cai; Tiankang Guo
Journal:  Asian J Surg       Date:  2020-01-18       Impact factor: 2.767

4.  Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Proctectomy Outcomes: An ACS-NSQIP Analysis.

Authors:  Katherine Y Hu; Ruizhe Wu; Aniko Szabo; Timothy J Ridolfi; Kirk A Ludwig; Carrie Y Peterson
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 2.192

5.  Does obesity impact postoperative outcomes following robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer?

Authors:  E Duchalais; N Machairas; S R Kelley; R G Landmann; A Merchea; D T Colibaseanu; K L Mathis; E J Dozois; D W Larson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Phase II Open Label Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Min Jung Kim; Sung Chan Park; Ji Won Park; Hee Jin Chang; Dae Yong Kim; Byung-Ho Nam; Dae Kyung Sohn; Jae Hwan Oh
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer in the US: a skewed population.

Authors:  Asya Ofshteyn; Katherine Bingmer; Christopher W Towe; Emily Steinhagen; Sharon L Stein
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial.

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

9.  Comparison of Risk Factors for Unplanned Conversion from Laparoscopic and Robotic to Open Colorectal Surgery Using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) Database.

Authors:  Anuradha R Bhama; Abdullah M Wafa; Jane Ferraro; Stacey D Collins; Andrew J Mullard; James F Vandewarker; Greta Krapohl; John C Byrn; Robert K Cleary
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China.

Authors:  Shan-Ping Ye; Wei-Quan Zhu; Dong-Ning Liu; Xiong Lei; Qun-Guang Jiang; Hui-Min Hu; Bo Tang; Peng-Hui He; Geng-Mei Gao; He-Chun Tang; Jun Shi; Tai-Yuan Li
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2020-04-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.