Robotic vs laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A propensity score matching cohort study and meta-analysis.

Autor:	Song L; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital, Chengdu 610000, Sichuan Province, China., Xu WQ; Department of Nephrology, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital, Chengdu 610000, Sichuan Province, China., Wei ZQ; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400000, China., Tang G; Division of Biliary Tract Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China. gangtang2017@163.com.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	World journal of gastrointestinal surgery [World J Gastrointest Surg] 2024 May 27; Vol. 16 (5), pp. 1280-1290.
DOI:	10.4240/wjgs.v16.i5.1280
Abstrakt:	Background: Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce. Aim: To compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery. Results: Of 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) ( P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in operative time ( P = 0.564), intraoperative transfusion ( P = 0.314), reoperation rate ( P = 0.314), lymph nodes harvested ( P = 0.309), or circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate ( P = 0.314) between the two groups. The meta-analysis showed patients in the RS group had fewer positive CRMs ( P = 0.04), lesser estimated blood loss ( P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays ( P = 0.02), and fewer postoperative complications ( P = 0.002) than patients in the LS group. Conclusion: Our study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS. Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors have no conflict of interest related to the manuscript. (©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu