提高机器人直肠癌手术的康复率并降低转换率:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Markus P Weigl, Christian Attenberger, Benedikt Feurstein, Tarkan Jäger, Klaus Emmanuel, Patrick Clemens, Sylvia Mink, Matthias Kowatsch, Ingmar Königsrainer, Peter Tschann
{"title":"提高机器人直肠癌手术的康复率并降低转换率:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Markus P Weigl, Christian Attenberger, Benedikt Feurstein, Tarkan Jäger, Klaus Emmanuel, Patrick Clemens, Sylvia Mink, Matthias Kowatsch, Ingmar Königsrainer, Peter Tschann","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03453-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal resection with conventional laparoscopic and open approaches, focusing on complication rates, conversion rates, length of hospital stay, and oncologic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective single-center cohort study included 106 patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer (UICC stages I-III) who underwent rectal resection from January 2013 to December 2023. Patients were assigned to open surgery (n = 23), conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 55), or robotic-assisted surgery (n = 28).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Robotic surgery demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates compared to minimal-invasive surgeries (p = 0.047) and shorter hospital stays (11.5 ± 8 days) compared to open (17.91 ± 12 days) and laparoscopic (17.2 ± 14 days) surgeries (p = 0.001). The quality of the specimen was significantly better (Score 1) in robotic (85.71%) and open (89.09%) cases compared to laparoscopic approaches (47.83%) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was identified as a risk factor for worse specimen quality (p < 0.001). Older patients (> 63 years) had a higher risk for conversion in univariate analysis (p = 0.049). Morbidity was comparable between the groups (p = 0.131), and the anastomotic leakage rate did not differ significantly (laparoscopic: 18.18%, open: 13.04%, robotic: 17.86%). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed no significant differences in overall survival probabilities among the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic-assisted rectal resection provides significant advantages in terms of lower conversion rates, better specimen quality, and shorter hospital stays while maintaining comparable complication rates and oncologic outcomes to conventional laparoscopic and open approaches. These findings support robotic surgery as a standard treatment option for rectal cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhanced recovery and reduced conversion rates in robotic rectal cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Markus P Weigl, Christian Attenberger, Benedikt Feurstein, Tarkan Jäger, Klaus Emmanuel, Patrick Clemens, Sylvia Mink, Matthias Kowatsch, Ingmar Königsrainer, Peter Tschann\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00423-024-03453-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal resection with conventional laparoscopic and open approaches, focusing on complication rates, conversion rates, length of hospital stay, and oncologic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective single-center cohort study included 106 patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer (UICC stages I-III) who underwent rectal resection from January 2013 to December 2023. Patients were assigned to open surgery (n = 23), conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 55), or robotic-assisted surgery (n = 28).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Robotic surgery demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates compared to minimal-invasive surgeries (p = 0.047) and shorter hospital stays (11.5 ± 8 days) compared to open (17.91 ± 12 days) and laparoscopic (17.2 ± 14 days) surgeries (p = 0.001). The quality of the specimen was significantly better (Score 1) in robotic (85.71%) and open (89.09%) cases compared to laparoscopic approaches (47.83%) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was identified as a risk factor for worse specimen quality (p < 0.001). Older patients (> 63 years) had a higher risk for conversion in univariate analysis (p = 0.049). Morbidity was comparable between the groups (p = 0.131), and the anastomotic leakage rate did not differ significantly (laparoscopic: 18.18%, open: 13.04%, robotic: 17.86%). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed no significant differences in overall survival probabilities among the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic-assisted rectal resection provides significant advantages in terms of lower conversion rates, better specimen quality, and shorter hospital stays while maintaining comparable complication rates and oncologic outcomes to conventional laparoscopic and open approaches. These findings support robotic surgery as a standard treatment option for rectal cancer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"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/s00423-024-03453-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03453-2","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

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较机器人辅助直肠切除术与传统腹腔镜和开腹手术的疗效,重点关注并发症发生率、转归率、住院时间和肿瘤疗效:一项回顾性单中心队列研究纳入了2013年1月至2023年12月期间接受直肠切除术的106例非转移性直肠癌患者(UICC I-III期)。患者被分配接受开腹手术(23例)、传统腹腔镜手术(55例)或机器人辅助手术(28例):与微创手术相比,机器人手术的转归率明显降低(p = 0.047),与开腹手术(17.91 ± 12 天)和腹腔镜手术(17.2 ± 14 天)相比,机器人手术的住院时间更短(11.5 ± 8 天)(p = 0.001)。在单变量分析中,机器人手术(85.71%)和开腹手术(89.09%)的标本质量明显优于腹腔镜手术(47.83%)(P=63岁)(P=0.049)。两组的发病率相当(p = 0.131),吻合口漏率没有显著差异(腹腔镜:18.18%;开腹:13.04%;机器人:17.86%)。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线显示,各组的总生存概率无明显差异:机器人辅助直肠切除术在转化率较低、标本质量较好、住院时间较短等方面具有明显优势,同时并发症发生率和肿瘤治疗效果与传统腹腔镜和开腹手术相当。这些研究结果支持将机器人手术作为直肠癌的标准治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Enhanced recovery and reduced conversion rates in robotic rectal cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Enhanced recovery and reduced conversion rates in robotic rectal cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal resection with conventional laparoscopic and open approaches, focusing on complication rates, conversion rates, length of hospital stay, and oncologic outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective single-center cohort study included 106 patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer (UICC stages I-III) who underwent rectal resection from January 2013 to December 2023. Patients were assigned to open surgery (n = 23), conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 55), or robotic-assisted surgery (n = 28).

Results: Robotic surgery demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates compared to minimal-invasive surgeries (p = 0.047) and shorter hospital stays (11.5 ± 8 days) compared to open (17.91 ± 12 days) and laparoscopic (17.2 ± 14 days) surgeries (p = 0.001). The quality of the specimen was significantly better (Score 1) in robotic (85.71%) and open (89.09%) cases compared to laparoscopic approaches (47.83%) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was identified as a risk factor for worse specimen quality (p < 0.001). Older patients (> 63 years) had a higher risk for conversion in univariate analysis (p = 0.049). Morbidity was comparable between the groups (p = 0.131), and the anastomotic leakage rate did not differ significantly (laparoscopic: 18.18%, open: 13.04%, robotic: 17.86%). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed no significant differences in overall survival probabilities among the groups.

Conclusion: Robotic-assisted rectal resection provides significant advantages in terms of lower conversion rates, better specimen quality, and shorter hospital stays while maintaining comparable complication rates and oncologic outcomes to conventional laparoscopic and open approaches. These findings support robotic surgery as a standard treatment option for rectal cancer.

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
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