Assessment of Circumferential Resection Margins (CRM) clearance in Conventional open Versus Laparoscopic Cancer Rectum Resection

Abstract Background Colon and rectal cancer represent the fourth commonest malignancy worldwide. Globally, colon and rectal cancer make up 9.4% and 10.1% in men and women of all cancers, respectively. Colon and rectal tumors are the third most common malignancy after breast and lung cancer, respectively. The main management of rectal cancer involves a multi-disciplinary team approach and an individually tailored treatment routine. Operative surgery remains the primary and definitive treatment for locally confined rectal adenocarcinoma and is the only historical and current treatment which allows for cure. Resection of the colon and rectal cancer can be done either by open surgical excision or laparoscopically. Aim of the work The objective is to compare the radicality of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in both open and laparoscopic surgery through the pathology report. Methods In this multicentric, prospective, comparative study, we included the pathologically established rectal cancer patients from 2 hospitals in Cairo, Egypt, Ain Shams University Hospitals and Maadi Military Hospital, Egypt between 2013 and 2016. The sample size was 40 patients divided into two groups; 20 patients for laparoscopic arm and 20 patients for the open trans-abdominal surgery. Inclusion criteria: histopathology confirmed rectal cancer, patients fit for operative resection, and with T1- T3 grades according to the preoperative evaluation. The exclusion criteria: Patients with T4 stage tumor, patients present as emergency cases and patients present with recurrence of the tumor and synchronous colonic tumors. Results The circumferential resection margins (CRM) of the mesorectum when examined pathologically after resection showed no difference between the two arms of the study with laparoscopic group specimens 3.18±1.16 mm mean, (SD) compared to 3.50±0.45 mm mean, (SD) in the open surgery group with no statistically significant difference. The longitudinal resection margins (LRM) was (5.50±1.98 mean, SD) in the laparoscopic group compared to (5.20±2.28 mean, SD) in the open conventional surgery group with no significant difference found between the two groups. Total operative time was significantly shorter in the trans-abdominal surgery group, while the hospital stay period was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group. Laparoscopy group also showed significantly time before flatus passage, and the patients in the laparoscopy group started oral intake faster than open surgery group. Conclusion In our study, the radicality of the rectal cancer excision in both laparoscopic and traditional open surgery, showed non inferiority of the laparoscopic technique over open surgery Long-term clinical outcomes of overall survival and recurrence is the foremost parameters which should be taken in consideration for decision for laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Additional follow-up results from the current trial are presently being developed, beside with records on other secondary end points, like cost effectiveness and quality of life.

Download Full-text

Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for the Treatment of Complicated Acute Appendicitis

Advances in Bioscience and Clinical Medicine ◽

10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.8n.1p.15 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. 15

Author(s):

Alireza Barband ◽

Amir Mangouri ◽

Changiz Gholipouri ◽

Abasad Gharedaghi

Keyword(s):

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Surgical Treatment ◽

Postoperative Pain ◽

Acute Appendicitis ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Surgery Group ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Duration Of Surgery ◽

Duration Of Hospitalization ◽

Complicated Acute Appendicitis

Background and Objective: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common and at the same time lethal if not treated promptly. Failure to treat this medical condition in a timely manner then it can lead to major complications that endanger the patient’s health. In these cases, surgical treatment can be done in an open or laparoscopic method. Despite some limited studies comparing the results of these two therapies, there is still insufficient information in patients with this complicated situation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of these two therapies in patients with complicated acute appendicitis. Materials and Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 52 patients with complicated acute appendicitis in the laparoscopic surgery group and 56 patients in the open surgery group were studied. Primary outcomes in this study were duration of surgery and secondary outcomes including wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative pain, miscarriage, hospitalization, and need for re-surgery that were compared between the two groups. Results: Both groups were matched for age (mean 31.0 years in laparoscopic surgery group, 30.5 years in open surgery group, p = 0.81) and gender (28 men in laparoscopic surgery group, 32 men in surgical group, p = 0.73). The mean duration of surgery in the laparoscopic group was significantly longer (mean 66.8 vs. 55.1 min, p <0.001). In contrast, mean duration of hospitalization (85.2 vs 98.6 hours, p <0.001) and mean postoperative pain severity (6.3 vs 7.2, p <0.001) was more significant high in open surgery group. In other cases there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: Although in surgical treatment of complicated acute appendicitis the duration of laparoscopic surgery is longer than the open method, but the duration of hospitalization and pain intensity in laparoscopic method is significantly reduced.

Download Full-text

Survival outcomes following laparoscopic vs open surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer: a two-center cohort study with propensity score matching

Gastroenterology Report ◽

10.1093/gastro/goaa046 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (4) ◽

pp. 319-325

Author(s):

Kang-Lian Tan ◽

Hai-Jun Deng ◽

Zhi-Qiang Chen ◽

Ting-Yu Mou ◽

Hao Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Propensity Score ◽

Propensity Score Matching ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Laparoscopic Group ◽

Term Survival ◽

Free Survival

Abstract Background:?> Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is commonly performed in China. However, compared with open surgery, the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery, especially the long-term survival, has not been sufficiently proved. Methods:?> Data of eligible patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer at Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University and Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine between 2012 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term survival outcomes and short-term surgical safety were analysed with propensity score matching between groups. Results Of 430 cases collated from two institutes, 103 matched pairs were analysed after propensity score matching. The estimated blood loss during laparoscopic surgery was significantly less than that during open surgery (P = 0.019) and the operative time and hospital stay were shorter in the laparoscopic group (both P < 0.001). The post-operative complications rate was 9.7% in the laparoscopic group and 10.7% in the open group (P = 0.818). No significant difference was observed between the laparoscopic group and the open group in the 5-year overall survival rate (75.7% vs 80.6%, P = 0.346), 5-year relapse-free survival rate (74.8% vs 76.7%, P = 0.527), or 5-year cancer-specific survival rate (79.6% vs 87.4%, P = 0.219). An elevated carcinoembryonic antigen, <12 harvested lymph nodes, and perineural invasion were independent prognostic factors affecting overall survival and relapse-free survival. Conclusions:?> Our findings suggest that open surgery should still be the priority recommendation, but laparoscopic surgery is also an acceptable treatment for non-metastatic rectal cancer.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Complications Between Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer

Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening ◽

10.2174/1386207322666190411113252 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 22 (3) ◽

pp. 179-186 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jian Dai ◽

Zhou Yu

Keyword(s):

Rectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Blood Loss ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Complication Rate ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Operation Time ◽

Lower Rectal Cancer ◽

Surgery Group ◽

Stay Time

Aim: To compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for lower rectal cancer with open surgery. Methods: The multiple databases including PubMed, Springer, EMBASE, EMBASE, OVID were adopted to search for the relevant studies, and full-text articles involving the comparison of unilateral and bilateral PVP surgery were reviewed. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among the selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted. Results: Finally, 1186 patients were included in the 10 studies, which eventually satisfied the eligibility criteria, and laparoscopic and open surgery group were 646 and 540, respectively. The meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant difference of the operation time between laparoscopic and open surgery group, while the time to solid intake, hospital stay time, blood loss and complication rate of laparoscopic group are much less than those of open surgery. Conclusion: Although both these two punctures provide similar operation time, we encourage the use of the laparoscopic surgery as the preferred surgical technique for treatment of lower rectal cancer due to less time to solid intake, hospital stay time, blood loss and lower complication rate.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Patients With Borderline Ovarian Tumors

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer ◽

10.1097/igc.0000000000001358 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 28 (9) ◽

pp. 1657-1663 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Hee-Jung Jung ◽

Jeong-Yeol Park ◽

Dae-Yeon Kim ◽

Dae-Shik Suh ◽

Jong-Hyeok Kim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Surgical Outcomes ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

Free Survival ◽

Borderline Ovarian Tumors ◽

Surgery Group ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Disease Free

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery in patients with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs).Materials and MethodsThis study included patients with BOTs who underwent open (n = 433) or laparoscopic (n = 210) surgery between 1990 and 2015. Surgical outcomes, perioperative morbidity, and disease-free survival and overall survival were compared.ResultsThere was no significant difference in age, histologic type of tumor, and laterality of tumor. However, body mass index was slightly higher for the open surgery group (P = 0.046). The open surgery group had a higher serum cancer antigen 125 level (P < 0.001), larger tumor size (P < 0.001), more frequent radical surgery (P = 0.001), higher stage (P = 0.034), and higher incidence of invasive implants (P = 0.035). The operative time (P < 0.001), time interval to return of bowel movement (P < 0.001), and length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly shorter and estimated blood loss was significantly less (P < 0.001) in the laparoscopic group. Perioperative complications were documented in 5 (2.4%) patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 17 (3.9%) in the open surgery group (P = 0.064). Twenty-three (5.3%) patients in the open surgery group and 9 (4.3%) in the laparoscopic surgery group had recurrence (P = 0.902) at a median follow-up of 57 months. The 10-year disease-free survival was 96% and 97% for the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively (P = 0.851), with no significant difference between the groups after adjusting for independent factors (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.4–2.4; P = 0.999). The 10-year overall survival was 99% for both groups, respectively (P = 0.441).ConclusionsLaparoscopic surgery and open surgery showed similar survival outcomes in BOTs. The surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were more favorable.

Download Full-text

No beneficial effect on survival but with a decreased postoperative adverse events for robotic surgery in patients with rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-330124/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Xiong Lei ◽

Lingling Yang ◽

Zhixiang Huang ◽

Haoran Shi ◽

Zhen Zhou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Robotic Surgery ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Beneficial Effect ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

Operation Time ◽

Laparoscopy Group ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Robot Group

Abstract Aim To compare the oncologic outcomes in patients with rectal cancer receiving robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery. Methods The clinical data of patients with rectal cancer receiving robotic surgery (Robot group, n = 317) or laparoscopic surgery (Laparoscopy group, n = 224) were collected for outcomes assessment. The primary endpoints were the survival outcome. The secondary outcomes were postoperative adverse events and pathologic characteristics. Results Patients in the Robot group have significantly shorter operation time (163.6 ± 41.1vs.190.6 ± 52.5min), shorter time to 1st gas passing [2(1)vs.3(1)d] and shorter hospital day [7(2)vs.8(3)d], compared to those in Laparoscopy group (P < 0.001, respectively). The incidence of urinary retention short- and long term in Robot group is significant lower than in Laparoscopy group (1.9% vs. 10.7%; 0.6% vs. 4.0%, P < 0.05, respectively). TNM stage II and III was more frequently observed in the Robot group than that in the Laparoscopy group (94.3% vs. 83.5%), whereas stage I was more common in the Laparoscopy group than in the Robot group (5.7% vs. 16.5%). No significant difference in the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were observed in Robot group and Laparoscopy group at 1-, 3- and 5-year. By a multivariable-adjusted analysis, the robotic surgery was not an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS. Conclusions A beneficial effect on survival of the robotic surgery for rectal cancer could not be demonstrated. However, the robot is a feasible surgical procedure due to the decreased postoperative adverse event.

Download Full-text

Open versus Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty - Outcome Correlation

Journal of Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College ◽

10.3329/jssmc.v8i1.31496 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. 3-7

Author(s):

Akhter Ahmed ◽

Salma Yesmin Chowdhury ◽

Md Mustafizur Rahman ◽

Farhana Shimu ◽

Shaon Shahriar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Confidence Interval ◽

Mesh Repair ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Laparoscopic Group ◽

Open Group ◽

Laparoscopic Technique ◽

Percent Confidence Interval ◽

Surgery Group ◽

Inguinal Hernias

Background: Repair of inguinal hernias in men is a common surgical procedure, but the most effective surgical technique is still in debate.Methods: We randomly assigned men with inguinal hernias at Mitford Hospital surgery, ward to either open mesh or laparoscopic mesh repair. The primary aim was to detect recurrence of hernias in both groups at 6 month. Secondary aims were to detect complications and patient compliance.Results: of the 70 patients who were randomly assigned to one of the two procedures, 62 underwent operation; 6 month follow-up was completed in 55 (78.6%). Recurrences were only one in the laparoscopic group (3.6%) and 1 in the open group (3.7%). The rate of complications was lower in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-surgery group (17.6% vs. 27%). The laparoscopic- surgery group had less pain initially than the open-surgery group on the day of surgery (difference in mean score on a visual-analogue scale, 10.2 mm; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.8 to 15.6) and at two weeks (6.1 mm; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 10.5) and returned to normal activities earlier (adjusted hazard ratio for a shorter time to return to normal activities, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.3). Hospital stay was shorter in laparoscopic group (2.6 days vs 3.2 days). Patients satisfaction with surgery was 95% in the laparoscopic group and 87% in open group. Nenety six laparoscopic and 87% of open surgery patients perceived that they were healthy after surgery. Total treatment cost was more in laparoscopic group.Conclusions: The laparoscopic technique is superior to the open technique for mesh repair of primary hernias.J Shaheed Suhrawardy Med Coll, June 2016, Vol.8(1); 3-7

Download Full-text

Comparison of Short-Term Results of Laparoscopy and Open Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

Medical Science and Discovery ◽

10.36472/msd.v9i1.664 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 34-37

Author(s):

Dogukan Durak ◽

Ertugrul Gazi Alkurt ◽

Veysel Barış Turhan

Keyword(s):

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Lymph Nodes ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Median Number ◽

Oral Feeding ◽

Pathology Report ◽

Laparoscopy Group ◽

Surgery Group ◽

Icu Discharge ◽

Malignant Lymph Nodes

Objective: Although laparoscopic colon cancer surgeries have increased in recent years, their oncological competence is questioned. In our study, we aimed to evaluate oncological competence by comparing laparoscopic and open surgery. Material and Methods: The study was planned retrospectively. A total of 94 patients were included in the study, 42 of whom underwent laparoscopy, and 52 patients underwent open surgery. Both groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, staging, number of benign/malignant lymph nodes, histological findings and complications. Result: The final pathology report of all patients was adenocarcinoma. The median number of dissected lymph nodes was 20.9 in the open group (8-34) and 19.46 in the laparoscopy group (7-31) (p=0.639). The median number of dissected malignant lymph nodes was 1 (0-13) in the open surgery group and 3.1 (0-8) in the laparoscopy group (p=0.216). The laparoscopy group exhibited a longer operation time (281.2±54.2 and 221.0±51.5 min, respectively; P=0.036) than the open surgery group, but a shorter intensive care unit(ICU) discharge, quicker initiation oral feeding, and shorter length of hospital stay (4.0±0.9 vs. 5.7±2.0 days, respectively; P<0.001). Discussion: Laparoscopic surgery elicits many benefits such as less wound infection, lower requirement for blood transfusion, shorter hospitalization, quicker initiation of oral feeding and mobilization. Our study has shown that laparoscopic surgery provides quite adequate lymph node dissection when compared with oncological surgery, which is viewed with suspicion in the light of these benefits of laparoscopy.

Download Full-text

Laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients in Germany: short and long-term results of a large 10-year population-based cohort

Surgical Endoscopy ◽

10.1007/s00464-019-06861-4 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 34 (3) ◽

pp. 1132-1141 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Valentin Schnitzbauer ◽

Michael Gerken ◽

Stefan Benz ◽

Vinzenz Völkel ◽

Teresa Draeger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Cox Regression ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Relative Survival ◽

Laparoscopic Group ◽

Cancer Registries ◽

Long Term Results

Abstract Background Rectal cancer is frequent in Germany and worldwide. Several studies have assessed laparoscopic surgery as a treatment option and most have shown favorable results. However, long-term oncologic safety remains a controversial issue. Methods The current dataset derives from 30 clinical cancer registries in Germany and includes 16,378 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between 2007 and 2016. Outcomes were 90-day mortality, overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (RFS) and relative survival of patients treated with either open or laparoscopic surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors that affected the probability of a patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery as well as to evaluate short-term mortality. OS and RFS were analyzed by Kaplan–Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression conducted separately for UICC stages I–III, tumor location, and sex as well as by propensity score matching followed by univariable and multivariable survival analysis. Results Of 16,378 patients, 4540 (27.7%) underwent laparoscopic surgery, a trend which increased during the observation period. Patients undergoing laparoscopy attained better results for 90-day mortality (odds ratio, OR 0.658, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.526–0.822). The 5-year OS rate in the laparoscopic group was 82.6%, vs. 76.6% in the open surgery group, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.819 in multivariable Cox regression (95% CI 0.747–0.899, p < 0.001). The laparoscopic group showed a better 5-year RFS, with 81.8 vs. 74.3% and HR 0.770 (95% CI 0.705–0.842, p < 0.001). The 5-year relative survival rates were also in favor of laparoscopy, with 93.1 vs. 88.4% (p = 0.012). Conclusion Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and, according to this study, is associated with an oncological outcome superior to that of the open procedure. Therefore, in the absence of individual contraindications, it should be considered as a standard approach.

Download Full-text

Effect of Carbon Nanoparticle Tracer Combined with Laparoscopy in the Treatment of Colon Cancer

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology ◽

10.1166/jnn.2020.18598 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (10) ◽

pp. 6007-6012

Author(s):

Liang Wang ◽

Huaping Xu ◽

Xiaofeng Zhang ◽

Yisheng Zhang ◽

Lianghui Shi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colon Cancer ◽

Lymph Node ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Postoperative Complications ◽

Recovery Time ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Laparoscopic Group ◽

Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽

Node Dissection ◽

Surgery Group

In this study, our aim was to compare the clinical effects of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer. From January 2018 to December 2018, a random sample of 398 colon cancer patients was collected. The open abdominal surgery group underwent open surgery, while the laparoscopic surgery group underwent laparoscopic surgery. The success rate of the two groups, total intraoperative blood loss, length of incision, postoperative bedtime, times of lymph node dissection, and incidence of postoperative complications were compared. Both groups were provided carbon nanotracers for staining. The intraoperative blood loss of the laparoscopic group was significantly lower than that of the open abdominal group (this difference was statistically significant, P < 0.01). However, the operation time and lymph node dissection were similar for the laparoscopic group and the open abdominal group (the difference was not statistically significant, P > 0.05). The gastrointestinal function recovery time, hospital stay, and lung infection rate of patients in the laparoscopic group were significantly lower than those of patients in the open abdominal group. Postoperative bleeding, anastomotic leakage, and wound infection were also observed, but differences between the groups were not statistically significant. The incidence of postoperative complications in the laparoscopic surgery group was lower than that in the open surgery group (statistically significantly, P < 0.05). Laparoscopic surgery in patients with colon cancer is effective and offers patients improved health, shortened recovery time, and better quality of life. Carbon nanotracers can be used to stain lymph nodes and to make distinguishing between diseased and normal tissue easier.

Download Full-text

No beneficial effect on survival but a decrease in postoperative complications in patients with rectal cancer undergoing robotic surgery: a retrospective cohort study

BMC Surgery ◽

10.1186/s12893-021-01309-w ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Xiong Lei ◽

Lingling Yang ◽

Zhixiang Huang ◽

Haoran Shi ◽

Zhen Zhou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rectal Cancer ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Robotic Surgery ◽

Postoperative Complications ◽

Laparoscopy Group ◽

Pathological Characteristics ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Robot Group ◽

General Conditions

Abstract Background Robotic surgery has been taken as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Here we aim to compare the oncologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer receiving robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery. Methods Data from patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between March 2011 and December 2018 were obtained for outcome assessment at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. All patients were separated into two groups: a robot group (patients receiving robotic surgery, n = 314) and a laparoscopy group (patients receiving laparoscopic surgery, n = 220). The primary endpoint was survival outcomes. The secondary endpoints were the general conditions of the operation, postoperative complications and pathological characteristics. Results The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at years 1, 3 and 5 were 96.6%, 88.7%, and 87.7% vs. 96.7%, 88.1%, and 78.4%, and 98.6%, 80.2-, and 73.5% vs. 96.2-, 87.2-, and 81.1% in the robot and laparoscopy groups, respectively (P > 0.05). In the multivariable-adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was not an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS (P = 0.925 and 0.451, respectively). With respect to the general conditions of the operation, patients in the robot group had significantly shorter operation times (163.5 ± 40.9 vs. 190.5 ± 51.9 min), shorter times to 1st gas passing [2(1) vs. 3(1)d] and shorter hospital stay days [7(2) vs. 8(3)d] compared to those in the laparoscopy group (P < 0.01, respectively). After the operation, the incidence of short- and long-term complications in the robot group was significantly lower than that in the laparoscopy group (15.9% vs. 32.3%; P < 0.001), especially for urinary retention (1.9% vs. 7.3%; 0.6% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.05, respectively). With regard to pathological characteristics, TNM stages II and III were more frequently observed in the robot group than in the laparoscopy group (94.3% vs. 83.2%, P < 0.001). No significant difference were observed in lymph nodes retrieved, lymphovascular invasion and circumferential resection margin involvement between the two groups (P > 0.05, respectively). Conclusions This monocentre retrospective comparative cohort study revealed short-term advantages of robot-assisted rectal cancer resection but similar survival compared to conventional laparoscopy.

Download Full-text