Evolution from laparoscopic to robotic radical resection for gallbladder cancer: a propensity score-matched comparative study.

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Changwei Dou, Mu He, Qingqing Wu, Jun Tong, Bingfu Fan, Junwei Liu, Liming Jin, Jie Liu, Chengwu Zhang
{"title":"Evolution from laparoscopic to robotic radical resection for gallbladder cancer: a propensity score-matched comparative study.","authors":"Changwei Dou, Mu He, Qingqing Wu, Jun Tong, Bingfu Fan, Junwei Liu, Liming Jin, Jie Liu, Chengwu Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s00464-024-11371-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of robotic or laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder cancer (GBC) is increasing, with reported advantages over conventional open surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes and postoperative overall survival (OS) associated with robotic radical resection (RRR) and laparoscopic radical resection (LRR) for GBC.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A total of 109 patients with GBC who underwent radical resection with the same surgical team between January 2015 and December 2023 were enrolled, with 21 patients in the RRR group and 88 cases in the LRR group. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) algorithm was used to compare the surgical outcomes and postoperative prognosis between the RRR and LRR groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors of postoperative overall survival (OS) and complications of Clavien-Dindo (C-D) Grades III-IV.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median follow-up time was 46 (inter-quartile range, IQR 29-70) months for the LRR group and 16 (IQR 12-34) months for the RRR group. After PSM, the baseline characteristics of the RRR and LRR groups were generally well balanced, with 21 patients in each group. RRR was associated with significantly decreased intraoperative bleeding [100.00 (50.00, 200.00) mL vs 200.00 (100.00, 300.00) mL] and higher number of lymph nodes (LNs) yield [12.00 (9.00, 15.50) vs 8.00 (6.00, 12.00)]. The two groups showed comparable outcomes in terms of the incidence of biliary reconstruction, the range of liver resection, the length of operation, the incidence of postoperative morbidity, the incidence of C-D Grades III-IV complications, number of the days of drainage tubes indwelling and postoperative hospital stay, and mortality by postoperative days 30 and 90. After PSM, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 78, 70, and 37%, respectively, in the RRR group, and 71, 59, and 48%, respectively, in the LRR group (P = 0.593). Multivariate analysis showed that the preoperative TB level ≥ 72 µmol/L and biliary reconstruction were found to be the independent risk factors of C-D Grades III-IV complications. T3 stage was identified to be the risk factor for postoperative OS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with LRR, RRR showed comparable perioperative outcomes in terms of length of operation, and postoperative complications, recovery, and OS. In our case series, RRR of GBC can be accomplished safely and tends to show less intraoperative bleeding and higher LNs yield.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11371-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of robotic or laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder cancer (GBC) is increasing, with reported advantages over conventional open surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes and postoperative overall survival (OS) associated with robotic radical resection (RRR) and laparoscopic radical resection (LRR) for GBC.

Method: A total of 109 patients with GBC who underwent radical resection with the same surgical team between January 2015 and December 2023 were enrolled, with 21 patients in the RRR group and 88 cases in the LRR group. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) algorithm was used to compare the surgical outcomes and postoperative prognosis between the RRR and LRR groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors of postoperative overall survival (OS) and complications of Clavien-Dindo (C-D) Grades III-IV.

Results: The median follow-up time was 46 (inter-quartile range, IQR 29-70) months for the LRR group and 16 (IQR 12-34) months for the RRR group. After PSM, the baseline characteristics of the RRR and LRR groups were generally well balanced, with 21 patients in each group. RRR was associated with significantly decreased intraoperative bleeding [100.00 (50.00, 200.00) mL vs 200.00 (100.00, 300.00) mL] and higher number of lymph nodes (LNs) yield [12.00 (9.00, 15.50) vs 8.00 (6.00, 12.00)]. The two groups showed comparable outcomes in terms of the incidence of biliary reconstruction, the range of liver resection, the length of operation, the incidence of postoperative morbidity, the incidence of C-D Grades III-IV complications, number of the days of drainage tubes indwelling and postoperative hospital stay, and mortality by postoperative days 30 and 90. After PSM, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 78, 70, and 37%, respectively, in the RRR group, and 71, 59, and 48%, respectively, in the LRR group (P = 0.593). Multivariate analysis showed that the preoperative TB level ≥ 72 µmol/L and biliary reconstruction were found to be the independent risk factors of C-D Grades III-IV complications. T3 stage was identified to be the risk factor for postoperative OS.

Conclusion: Compared with LRR, RRR showed comparable perioperative outcomes in terms of length of operation, and postoperative complications, recovery, and OS. In our case series, RRR of GBC can be accomplished safely and tends to show less intraoperative bleeding and higher LNs yield.

从腹腔镜胆囊癌根治术到机器人胆囊癌根治术的演变:倾向评分匹配比较研究。
背景:使用机器人或腹腔镜手术治疗胆囊癌(GBC)的患者越来越多,据报道,与传统开腹手术相比,机器人或腹腔镜手术具有更多优势。本研究的目的是比较GBC机器人根治性切除术(RRR)和腹腔镜根治性切除术(LRR)的围术期疗效和术后总生存率(OS):方法:共纳入了2015年1月至2023年12月期间在同一手术团队接受根治性切除术的109例GBC患者,其中RRR组21例,LRR组88例。采用1:1倾向得分匹配(PSM)算法比较RRR组和LRR组的手术效果和术后预后。采用逻辑回归分析确定术后总生存率(OS)和Clavien-Dindo(C-D)III-IV级并发症的风险因素:LRR组的中位随访时间为46个月(四分位距间,IQR 29-70),RRR组为16个月(IQR 12-34)。PSM 后,RRR 组和 LRR 组的基线特征基本平衡,每组各有 21 名患者。RRR与术中出血量明显减少[100.00(50.00,200.00)毫升 vs 200.00(100.00,300.00)毫升]和淋巴结(LNs)产量增加[12.00(9.00,15.50) vs 8.00(6.00,12.00)]有关。两组在胆道重建发生率、肝切除范围、手术时间、术后发病率、C-D III-IV 级并发症发生率、引流管留置天数和术后住院天数以及术后 30 天和 90 天死亡率方面的结果相当。PSM 后,RRR 组的 1 年、2 年和 3 年总生存率分别为 78%、70% 和 37%,LRR 组分别为 71%、59% 和 48%(P = 0.593)。多变量分析显示,术前 TB 水平≥ 72 µmol/L 和胆道重建是 C-D III-IV 级并发症的独立危险因素。T3期被认为是术后OS的风险因素:结论:与 LRR 相比,RRR 在手术时间、术后并发症、恢复和 OS 方面的围手术期结果相当。在我们的病例系列中,GBC 的 RRR 是可以安全完成的,而且术中出血较少,LN 产量较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信