Short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Daichi Kitaguchi, Tsuyoshi Enomoto, Kinji Furuya, Shuntaro Tsukamoto, Tatsuya Oda
{"title":"Short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer.","authors":"Daichi Kitaguchi, Tsuyoshi Enomoto, Kinji Furuya, Shuntaro Tsukamoto, Tatsuya Oda","doi":"10.1007/s00423-025-03747-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The lateral pelvic cavity is an anatomically tricky site to access using a linear approach; therefore, robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) may be superior over existing laparoscopic procedures. In this study, we aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted LLND (R-LLND) versus laparoscopic LLND (L-LLND) for locally advanced low rectal cancer and explore the potential advantages of robot-assisted surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective cohort study included patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (TME) plus LLND for low rectal adenocarcinoma. Patients were divided into L-LLND and R-LLND groups. The short- and long-term outcomes of the procedures were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 41 patients in the L-LLND group and 21 in the R-LLND group. The incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the R-LLND group (49% vs. 19%, p = 0.029), especially urinary retention (29% vs. 5%, p = 0.046). The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the R-LLND group (22 vs. 15 days, p < 0.001). The 3-year relapse-free survival rates in the L-LLND and R-LLND groups were 75.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.9-85.9) and 65.7% (95% CI: 30.7-86.1), respectively. No significant differences were observed in long-term survival outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent TME plus R-LLND had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative complications and a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay compared to those who underwent TME plus L-LLND. The long-term outcomes were comparable, and no oncological concerns associated with R-LLND were observed.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"410 1","pages":"178"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12145284/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-025-03747-z","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

Purpose: The lateral pelvic cavity is an anatomically tricky site to access using a linear approach; therefore, robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) may be superior over existing laparoscopic procedures. In this study, we aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted LLND (R-LLND) versus laparoscopic LLND (L-LLND) for locally advanced low rectal cancer and explore the potential advantages of robot-assisted surgery.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study included patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (TME) plus LLND for low rectal adenocarcinoma. Patients were divided into L-LLND and R-LLND groups. The short- and long-term outcomes of the procedures were compared.

Results: There were 41 patients in the L-LLND group and 21 in the R-LLND group. The incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the R-LLND group (49% vs. 19%, p = 0.029), especially urinary retention (29% vs. 5%, p = 0.046). The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the R-LLND group (22 vs. 15 days, p < 0.001). The 3-year relapse-free survival rates in the L-LLND and R-LLND groups were 75.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.9-85.9) and 65.7% (95% CI: 30.7-86.1), respectively. No significant differences were observed in long-term survival outcomes.

Conclusion: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent TME plus R-LLND had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative complications and a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay compared to those who underwent TME plus L-LLND. The long-term outcomes were comparable, and no oncological concerns associated with R-LLND were observed.

机器人辅助与腹腔镜下直肠癌侧淋巴结清扫的短期和长期结果。
目的:骨盆外侧是一个解剖学上难以使用线性入路的部位;因此,机器人辅助侧淋巴结清扫(LLND)可能优于现有的腹腔镜手术。在本研究中,我们旨在比较机器人辅助LLND (R-LLND)与腹腔镜LLND (L-LLND)治疗局部晚期低位直肠癌的短期和长期结果,并探讨机器人辅助手术的潜在优势。方法:这项单中心、回顾性队列研究纳入了年龄≥18岁、接受微创全肠系膜切除术(TME) + LLND治疗低位直肠腺癌的患者。患者分为L-LLND组和R-LLND组。比较两种手术的短期和长期效果。结果:L-LLND组41例,R-LLND组21例。R-LLND组术后并发症发生率明显低于对照组(49%比19%,p = 0.029),尤其是尿潴留发生率(29%比5%,p = 0.046)。R-LLND组的术后中位住院时间明显缩短(22天vs 15天),p结论:局部晚期直肠癌患者接受TME + R-LLND的术后并发症发生率明显低于接受TME + L-LLND的患者,术后住院时间明显缩短。长期结果具有可比性,没有观察到与R-LLND相关的肿瘤问题。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信