Single-docking Robotic Assisted Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer Below Peritoneal Reflection: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Overview

Journal Ann Transl Med

Publisher AME Publishing Company

Date 2021 Jul 19

PMID 34277813

Authors

Tao Zhang

Zijia Song

Yaqi Zhang

Feng Ye

Xi Cheng

Shaodong Wang

Xiaoqian Jing

Xiaopin Ji

Ren Zhao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of robotic assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic assisted proctectomy (LP) for rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Methods: We evaluated the medical records of 200 patients who underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection through a robotic (n=81) or laparoscopic (n=119) approach between Jan 2015 and Dec 2017. The data were prospectively collected, and the patients were matched at a ratio of 1:1 according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), previous abdominal surgeries, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (≤2/>2), and pathologic stage.

Results: After matching, each group included 74 patients. Compared to the LP group, the RP group showed shorter postoperative hospital stays (PHS) [7 (±2) . 9 (±2.3) d, P=0.003], shorter time to liquid diet [3 (±2) . 5 (±3) d, P<0.001], and shorter time to removal of catheter [6 (±2) . 7 (±2.3) d, p=0.014]. The operative expense was higher in the RP group [8,365 (±1,600) . 6,922 (±1,220) RMB, P<0.001]. The operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, and pathologic outcomes were similar between the two groups. No conversion to laparotomy, readmission, or mortality was observed in either group within 30 days after surgery. The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) were 75.2% and 88.3% (P=0.070), and overall survival (OS) were 92.9% and 93.7% (P=0.810) in the RP and the LP groups, respectively and the risk of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) was lower in the RP group (OR =0.304, 95% CI: 0.124-0.745, P=0.009).

Conclusions: Compared to LP, RP is worth recommending as it has long-term survival, faster postoperative recovery, and a lower risk of LARS in patients with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection.

References

Kim M, Park S, Park J, Chang H, Kim D, Nam B . Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Phase II Open Label Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2017; 267(2):243-251. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002321. View

Hsieh C, Cologne K . Laparoscopic Approach to Rectal Cancer-The New Standard?. Front Oncol. 2020; 10:1239. PMC: 7412716. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01239. View

Sammour T, Malakorn S, Bednarski B, Kaur H, Shin U, Messick C . Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Analysis of a Prospective Database. Ann Surg. 2016; 267(3):521-526. PMC: 5498254. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002112. View

Croese A, Lonie J, Trollope A, Vangaveti V, Ho Y . A meta-analysis of the prevalence of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome and systematic review of risk factors. Int J Surg. 2018; 56:234-241. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.06.031. View

Chang W, Wei Y, Ren L, Jian M, Chen Y, Chen J . Short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic rectal surgery-from the real word data of 1145 consecutive cases in China. Surg Endosc. 2019; 34(9):4079-4088. PMC: 7395014. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07170-6. View

van der Pas M, Haglind E, Cuesta M, Furst A, Lacy A, Hop W . Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(3):210-8. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0. View

Denost Q, Adam J, Rullier A, Buscail E, Laurent C, Rullier E . Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2014; 260(6):993-9. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000766. View

Jones K, G Qassem M, Sains P, Baig M, Sajid M . Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018; 10(11):449-464. PMC: 6247103. DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i11.449. View

Kim C, Jeong W, Son G, Kim I, Park J, Jeong S . Validation of Korean Version of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score Questionnaire. Ann Coloproctol. 2020; 36(2):83-87. PMC: 7299562. DOI: 10.3393/ac.2019.08.01. View

10.

Juul T, Elfeki H, Christensen P, Laurberg S, Emmertsen K, Bager P . Normative Data for the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score (LARS Score). Ann Surg. 2019; 269(6):1124-1128. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002750. View

11.

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A . Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(3):209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660. View

12.

Jeong S, Park J, Nam B, Kim S, Kang S, Lim S . Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(7):767-74. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70205-0. View

13.

Pieniowski E, Palmer G, Juul T, Lagergren P, Johar A, Emmertsen K . Low Anterior Resection Syndrome and Quality of Life After Sphincter-Sparing Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Long-term Longitudinal Follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018; 62(1):14-20. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001228. View

14.

Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent D, Boller A, George V, Abbas M . Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015; 314(13):1346-55. PMC: 5140087. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.10529. View

15.

Koda K, Yamazaki M, Shuto K, Kosugi C, Mori M, Narushima K . Etiology and management of low anterior resection syndrome based on the normal defecation mechanism. Surg Today. 2019; 49(10):803-808. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-019-01795-9. View

16.

Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J . Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017; 318(16):1569-1580. PMC: 5818805. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.7219. View

17.

Temple L . Expert Commentary on Low Anterior Resection Syndrome. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019; 62(12):1423-1424. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001531. View

18.

Juul T, Ahlberg M, Biondo S, Emmertsen K, Espin E, Jimenez L . International validation of the low anterior resection syndrome score. Ann Surg. 2013; 259(4):728-34. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828fac0b. View