Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic approaches in short- and long-term outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: a Japanese multicenter study.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Mitsutoshi Ishii, Tetsuro Tominaga, Takashi Nonaka, Yuma Takamura, Kaido Oishi, Shintaro Hashimoto, Toshio Shiraishi, Keisuke Noda, Rika Ono, Makoto Hisanaga, Hiroaki Takeshita, Hidetoshi Fukuoka, Shosaburo Oyama, Terumitsu Sawai, Keitaro Matsumoto
{"title":"Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic approaches in short- and long-term outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: a Japanese multicenter study.","authors":"Mitsutoshi Ishii, Tetsuro Tominaga, Takashi Nonaka, Yuma Takamura, Kaido Oishi, Shintaro Hashimoto, Toshio Shiraishi, Keisuke Noda, Rika Ono, Makoto Hisanaga, Hiroaki Takeshita, Hidetoshi Fukuoka, Shosaburo Oyama, Terumitsu Sawai, Keitaro Matsumoto","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03596-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a challenging surgical technique with complex anatomy and narrow pelvic manipulation. The outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for LPND are still unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed 169 consecutive patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery with LPND between 2016 and 2023. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether LPND was performed by robotic surgery (R group, n = 40) or laparoscopic surgery (L group, n = 129). Clinicopathological feature and outcomes were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Frequency of surgery with combined resection of adjacent structures (5.0% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.023), frequency of patients with distant metastasis (5.0% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.028), and estimated blood loss from bilateral LPND (74 mL vs. 132 mL, p = 0.013) were all lower in the R group than in the L group. Type of surgical approach did not correlate with postoperative complications. Median follow-up was 31.0 months (range, 1.0-69.0 months). No patients in the R group experienced local recurrence, compared to 4.6% in the L group. Multivariate analysis revealed laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio 3.687, 95% confidence interval 1.505-6.033; p = 0.004) as an independent predictor of poor relapse-free survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Robotic surgery for LPND appears to have good prognostic value in some, but not all, oncologic cases. However, large prospective studies are desirable to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"410 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03596-2","RegionNum":3,"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: Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a challenging surgical technique with complex anatomy and narrow pelvic manipulation. The outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for LPND are still unclear.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 169 consecutive patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery with LPND between 2016 and 2023. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether LPND was performed by robotic surgery (R group, n = 40) or laparoscopic surgery (L group, n = 129). Clinicopathological feature and outcomes were compared between groups.

Results: Frequency of surgery with combined resection of adjacent structures (5.0% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.023), frequency of patients with distant metastasis (5.0% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.028), and estimated blood loss from bilateral LPND (74 mL vs. 132 mL, p = 0.013) were all lower in the R group than in the L group. Type of surgical approach did not correlate with postoperative complications. Median follow-up was 31.0 months (range, 1.0-69.0 months). No patients in the R group experienced local recurrence, compared to 4.6% in the L group. Multivariate analysis revealed laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio 3.687, 95% confidence interval 1.505-6.033; p = 0.004) as an independent predictor of poor relapse-free survival.

Conclusions: Robotic surgery for LPND appears to have good prognostic value in some, but not all, oncologic cases. However, large prospective studies are desirable to validate these findings.

机器人和腹腔镜入路对晚期直肠癌盆腔外侧淋巴结清扫的短期和长期疗效的比较:一项日本多中心研究。
背景:骨盆外侧淋巴结清扫术(lnd)是一项具有挑战性的手术技术,具有复杂的解剖结构和狭窄的骨盆操作。机器人和腹腔镜手术治疗lnd的效果尚不清楚。方法:我们回顾性分析了2016年至2023年间169例连续接受直肠癌手术合并lpd的患者。根据是否采用机器人手术(R组,n = 40)或腹腔镜手术(L组,n = 129)将患者分为两组。比较两组患者的临床病理特征及预后。结果:R组合并相邻结构切除的手术频率(5.0% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.023)、远处转移的患者频率(5.0% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.028)、双侧lnd估计失血量(74 mL vs. 132 mL, p = 0.013)均低于L组。手术入路类型与术后并发症无相关性。中位随访为31.0个月(范围1.0-69.0个月)。R组没有患者出现局部复发,而L组为4.6%。多因素分析显示腹腔镜手术(优势比3.687,95%可信区间1.505-6.033;P = 0.004)作为无复发生存差的独立预测因子。结论:机器人手术治疗lnd似乎在一些肿瘤病例中具有良好的预后价值,但不是全部。然而,需要大规模的前瞻性研究来验证这些发现。
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
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
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