直肠癌机器人辅助手术与开腹手术病理结果的比较研究。

IF 3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Annals of Coloproctology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-28 DOI:10.3393/ac.2022.00332.0047
René Reyes, Csaba Kindler, Kenneth Smedh, Catarina Tiselius
{"title":"直肠癌机器人辅助手术与开腹手术病理结果的比较研究。","authors":"René Reyes, Csaba Kindler, Kenneth Smedh, Catarina Tiselius","doi":"10.3393/ac.2022.00332.0047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The use of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but the pathological outcomes have not been fully clarified. We compared the surgical and pathological outcomes between robot-assisted and open surgery in specimens from patients operated on for rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients who underwent resection for rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018 were included (n=137). Specimens were divided into 3 sections to analyze the pathology of the lymph nodes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total specimen lengths were shorter in the robot-assisted group than in the open surgery group (mean±standard deviation: 29.1±8.6 cm vs. 33.8±9.9 cm, P=0.004) because of a shorter proximal resection margin (21.7±8.7 cm vs. 26.4±10.6 cm, P=0.006). The number of recruited lymph nodes (35.8±21.8 vs. 39.6±16.5, P=0.604) and arterial vessel length (8.84±2.6 cm vs. 8.78±2.4 cm, P=0.891) did not differ significantly between the 2 surgical approaches. Lymph node metastases were found in 33 of 137 samples (24.1%), but the numbers did not differ significantly between the procedures. Among these 33 cases, metastatic lymph nodes were located in the mesorectum (75.8%), in the sigmoid colon mesentery (33.3%), and at the arterial ligation site of the inferior mesenteric artery (12.1%). The circumferential resection margin and the proportion of complete mesorectal fascia were comparable between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were no significant differences between the 2 surgical approaches regarding arterial vessel length, recruitment of lymph node metastases, and resection margins.</p>","PeriodicalId":8267,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Coloproctology","volume":" ","pages":"154-160"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11082550/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of the pathological outcomes of robot-assisted versus open surgery for rectal cancer.\",\"authors\":\"René Reyes, Csaba Kindler, Kenneth Smedh, Catarina Tiselius\",\"doi\":\"10.3393/ac.2022.00332.0047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The use of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but the pathological outcomes have not been fully clarified. We compared the surgical and pathological outcomes between robot-assisted and open surgery in specimens from patients operated on for rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients who underwent resection for rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018 were included (n=137). Specimens were divided into 3 sections to analyze the pathology of the lymph nodes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total specimen lengths were shorter in the robot-assisted group than in the open surgery group (mean±standard deviation: 29.1±8.6 cm vs. 33.8±9.9 cm, P=0.004) because of a shorter proximal resection margin (21.7±8.7 cm vs. 26.4±10.6 cm, P=0.006). The number of recruited lymph nodes (35.8±21.8 vs. 39.6±16.5, P=0.604) and arterial vessel length (8.84±2.6 cm vs. 8.78±2.4 cm, P=0.891) did not differ significantly between the 2 surgical approaches. Lymph node metastases were found in 33 of 137 samples (24.1%), but the numbers did not differ significantly between the procedures. Among these 33 cases, metastatic lymph nodes were located in the mesorectum (75.8%), in the sigmoid colon mesentery (33.3%), and at the arterial ligation site of the inferior mesenteric artery (12.1%). The circumferential resection margin and the proportion of complete mesorectal fascia were comparable between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were no significant differences between the 2 surgical approaches regarding arterial vessel length, recruitment of lymph node metastases, and resection margins.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Coloproctology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"154-160\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11082550/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Coloproctology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00332.0047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00332.0047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:使用机器人辅助手术治疗直肠癌的患者越来越多,但其病理结果尚未完全明确。我们比较了直肠癌手术患者标本中机器人辅助手术和开放手术的手术和病理结果:纳入2016年至2018年接受直肠癌切除术的所有患者。标本分为3个部分,分析淋巴结(LN)的病理情况(n=137):机器人辅助组的标本总长度短于开放手术组(平均值±标准差:29.1±8.6 cm vs. 33.8±9.9 cm,P=0.004),因为近端切除边缘较短(21.7±8.7 vs. 26.4±10.6 cm,P=0.006)。两种手术方法的LN数量(35.8±21.8 vs. 39.6±16.5,P=0.604)和动脉血管长度(8.84±2.6 cm vs. 8.78±2.4 cm,P=0.891)无显著差异。137 例样本中有 33 例(24.1%)发现了 LN 转移,但两种手术方法的转移数量无明显差异。在这33个病例中,转移LN位于直肠系膜(75.8%)、乙状结肠系膜(33.3%)和肠系膜下动脉结扎处(12.1%)。两组的切除边缘周缘和完整的直肠系膜筋膜比例相当:结论:两种手术方法在动脉血管长度、LN转移灶的募集和切除边缘方面没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative study of the pathological outcomes of robot-assisted versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

Purpose: The use of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but the pathological outcomes have not been fully clarified. We compared the surgical and pathological outcomes between robot-assisted and open surgery in specimens from patients operated on for rectal cancer.

Methods: All patients who underwent resection for rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018 were included (n=137). Specimens were divided into 3 sections to analyze the pathology of the lymph nodes.

Results: The total specimen lengths were shorter in the robot-assisted group than in the open surgery group (mean±standard deviation: 29.1±8.6 cm vs. 33.8±9.9 cm, P=0.004) because of a shorter proximal resection margin (21.7±8.7 cm vs. 26.4±10.6 cm, P=0.006). The number of recruited lymph nodes (35.8±21.8 vs. 39.6±16.5, P=0.604) and arterial vessel length (8.84±2.6 cm vs. 8.78±2.4 cm, P=0.891) did not differ significantly between the 2 surgical approaches. Lymph node metastases were found in 33 of 137 samples (24.1%), but the numbers did not differ significantly between the procedures. Among these 33 cases, metastatic lymph nodes were located in the mesorectum (75.8%), in the sigmoid colon mesentery (33.3%), and at the arterial ligation site of the inferior mesenteric artery (12.1%). The circumferential resection margin and the proportion of complete mesorectal fascia were comparable between the groups.

Conclusion: There were no significant differences between the 2 surgical approaches regarding arterial vessel length, recruitment of lymph node metastases, and resection margins.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
73
×
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