Effect of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

Autor:	Ferrari D; Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States; General Surgery Residency Program, University of Milan, Milan, Italy., Violante T; Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States; Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy., Bhatt H; Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States., Gomaa IA; Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States., D'Angelo AD; Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States., Mathis KL; Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States., Larson DW; Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States. Electronic address: Larson.David2@mayo.edu.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract [J Gastrointest Surg] 2024 Apr; Vol. 28 (4), pp. 513-518. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jan 23.
DOI:	10.1016/j.gassur.2024.01.011
Abstrakt:	Background: The effect of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) in laparoscopic surgery is well known and significantly adds to longer hospital length of stay (LOS), postoperative ileus, and inadvertent enterotomies. However, little evidence exists in patients with PAS undergoing robotic-assisted (RA) rectal surgery. Methods: All patients undergoing RA surgery for rectal cancer were reviewed. Patients with PAS were divided into minor and major PAS groups, defined as surgery involving >1 quadrant. The primary outcome was the risk of conversion to open surgery. Results: A total of 750 patients were included, 531 in the no-PAS (NPAS) group, 31 in the major PAS group, and 188 in the minor PAS group. Patients in the major PAS group had significantly longer hospital LOS (P < .001) and lower adherence to enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs; P = .004). The conversion rates to open surgery were similar: 3.4% in the NPAS group, 5.9% in the minor PAS group, and 9.7% in the major PAS group (P = .113). Estimated blood loss (EBL; P = .961), operative times (OTs; P = .062), complication rates (P = .162), 30-day readmission (P = .691), and 30-day mortality (P = .494) were similar. Of note, 53 patients underwent lysis of adhesions (LOA). On multivariate analysis, EBL >500 mL and LOA significantly influenced conversion to open surgery. EBL >500 mL, age >65 years, conversion to open surgery, and prolonged OT were risk factors for prolonged LOS, whereas adherence to ERPs was a protector. Conclusion: PAS did not seem to affect the outcomes in RA rectal surgery. Given this finding, the robotic approach may ultimately provide patients with PAS with similar risk to patients without PAS. (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu