Clinical outcomes of elective robotic vs laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer utilizing a large national database

被引:2
|
作者
Ahuja, Vanita [1 ,2 ]
Paredes, Lucero G. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Leeds, Ira L. [1 ,2 ]
Perkal, Melissa F. [1 ,2 ]
King, Joseph T. [2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Dept Surg, Sch Med, New Haven, CT USA
[2] US Dept Vet Affairs, VA Connecticut Healthcare Syst, West Haven, CT 06516 USA
[3] Yale Univ, Natl Clinician Scholars Program, Sch Med, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
[4] Maine Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Portland, ME 04102 USA
[5] Yale Sch Med, Dept Neurosurg, New Haven, CT USA
关键词
Robotic surgery; Laparoscopic surgery; Colectomy; Colon cancer; COLORECTAL SURGERY; POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES; LEARNING-CURVE; COLECTOMY; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-023-10215-6
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundPrior studies have shown comparable outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches across a range of surgeries; however, these have been limited in size. This study investigates differences in outcomes following robotic (RC) vs laparoscopic (LC) colectomy across several years utilizing a large national database.MethodsWe analyzed data from ACS NSQIP for patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies for colon cancer from 2012 to 2020. Inverse probability weighting with regression adjustment (IPWRA) incorporating demographics, operative factors, and comorbidities was used. Outcomes included mortality, complications, return to the operating room (OR), post-operative length of stay (LOS), operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak. Secondary analysis was performed to further assess anastomotic leak rate following right and left colectomies.ResultsWe identified 83,841 patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies: 14,122 (16.8%) RC and 69,719 (83.2%) LC. Patients who underwent RC were younger, more likely to be male, non-Hispanic White, with higher body mass index (BMI) and fewer comorbidities (for all, P < 0.05). After adjustment, there were no differences between RC and LC for 30-day mortality (0.8% vs 0.9% respectively, P = 0.457) or overall complications (16.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.432). RC was associated with higher return to OR (5.1% vs 3.6%, P < 0.001), lower LOS (4.9 vs 5.1 days, P < 0.001), longer operative time (247 vs 184 min, P < 0.001), and higher rates of readmission (8.8% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). Anastomotic leak rates were comparable for right-sided RC vs LC (2.1% vs 2.2%, P = 0.713), higher for left-sided LC (2.7%, P < 0.001), and highest for left-sided RC (3.4%, P < 0.001).ConclusionsRobotic approach for elective colon cancer resection has similar outcomes to its laparoscopic counterpart. There were no differences in mortality or overall complications, however anastomotic leaks were highest after left RC. Further investigation is imperative to better understand the potential impact of technological advancement such as robotic surgery on patient outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:7199 / 7205
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] ROBOTIC VS. LAPAROSCOPIC COLECTOMY FOR COLON CANCER: WHICH IS BETTER?
    Ahuja, Vanita
    Paredes, Lucero G.
    Perkal, Melissa
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 164 (06) : S1550 - S1550
  • [22] Optimizing outcomes in colorectal surgery: cost and clinical analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to colon resection
    Kevin J. Hancock
    V. Suzanne Klimberg
    Omar Nunez-Lopez
    Aakash H. Gajjar
    Guillermo Gomez
    Douglas S. Tyler
    Laila Rashidi
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2022, 16 : 107 - 112
  • [23] Comparative study of oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic vs. open surgery in transverse colon cancer
    Kim, Woo Ram
    Baek, Se Jin
    Kim, Chang Woo
    Jang, Hyun A.
    Cho, Min Soo
    Bae, Sung Uk
    Hur, Hyuk
    Min, Byung Soh
    Baik, Seung Hyuk
    Lee, Kang Young
    Kim, Nam Kyu
    Sohn, Seung Kuk
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL TREATMENT AND RESEARCH, 2014, 86 (01) : 28 - 34
  • [24] Optimizing outcomes in colorectal surgery: cost and clinical analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to colon resection
    Hancock, Kevin J.
    Klimberg, V. Suzanne
    Nunez-Lopez, Omar
    Gajjar, Aakash H.
    Gomez, Guillermo
    Tyler, Douglas S.
    Rashidi, Laila
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2022, 16 (01) : 107 - 112
  • [25] Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs
    Benedetto Ielpo
    H. Duran
    E. Diaz
    I. Fabra
    R. Caruso
    L. Malavé
    V. Ferri
    J. Nuñez
    A. Ruiz-Ocaña
    E. Jorge
    S. Lazzaro
    D. Kalivaci
    Y. Quijano
    E. Vicente
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 2017, 32 : 1423 - 1429
  • [26] Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs
    Ielpo, Benedetto
    Duran, H.
    Diaz, E.
    Fabra, I.
    Caruso, R.
    Malave, L.
    Ferri, V.
    Nunez, J.
    Ruiz-Ocana, A.
    Jorge, E.
    Lazzaro, S.
    Kalivaci, D.
    Quijano, Y.
    Vicente, E.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2017, 32 (10) : 1423 - 1429
  • [27] Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database
    Delaney, Conor P.
    Chang, Eunice
    Senagore, Anthony J.
    Broder, Michael
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2008, 247 (05) : 819 - 824
  • [28] Elective robotic-assisted bariatric surgery: Is it worth the money? A national database analysis
    Pokala, Bhavani
    Samuel, Shradha
    Yanala, Ujwal
    Armijo, Priscila
    Kothari, Vishal
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2020, 220 (06): : 1445 - 1450
  • [29] Cost and outcomes analysis of robotic, laparoscopic, and open colon resection: a national study
    Juo, Yen-Yi
    Hyder, Omar
    Haider, Adil H.
    Camp, Melissa
    Lidor, Anne
    Ahuja, Nita
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2013, 217 (03) : S112 - S113
  • [30] Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer
    Hirano, Yasumitsu
    Hiranuma, Chikashi
    Hattori, Masakazu
    Douden, Kenji
    Hashizume, Yasuo
    Tanuguchi, Keizo
    EUROPEAN SURGERY-ACTA CHIRURGICA AUSTRIACA, 2017, 49 (06): : 261 - 265