Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Min Soo Cho, Se Jin Baek, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Namkyu Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The true benefits of robotic surgery are controversial, and whether robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be justified as a standard treatment for rectal cancer patients needs to be clarified. This case-matched study aimed to compare the postoperative complications and short-and long-term outcomes of R-TME and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) for rectal cancer. Among 1029 patients, we identified 278 rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME. Propensity score matching was used to match this group with 278 patients who underwent L-TME. The mean follow-up period was similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 52.5±17.1 vs 51.0±13.1 months, P=0.253), as were patient characteristics. The operation time was significantly longer in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (361.6±91.9 vs 272.4±83.8min; P<0.001), whereas the conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and recovery of pain and bowel motility were similar between both groups. The rates of circumferential resection margin involvement and early complications were similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 4.7% vs 5.0%, P=1.000; and 23.7% vs 25.9%, P=0.624, respectively), as were the 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates (93.1% vs 92.2%, P=0.422; 79.6% vs 81.8%, P=0.538; 3.9% vs 5.9%, P=0.313, respectively). The oncologic quality, short-and long-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity in the R-TME group were comparable with those in the L-TME group.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e522
JournalMedicine (United States)
Volume94
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Mar 7

Fingerprint

Robotics
Rectal Neoplasms
Length of Stay
Propensity Score
Disease-Free Survival
Morbidity
Recurrence
Pain
Survival

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Cho, Min Soo ; Baek, Se Jin ; Hur, Hyuk ; Min, Byung Soh ; Baik, Seung Hyuk ; Lee, Kang Young ; Kim, Namkyu. / Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. In: Medicine (United States). 2015 ; Vol. 94, No. 11. pp. e522.
@article{73c917af66ad4e81b7c400367a76880a,
title = "Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer",
abstract = "The true benefits of robotic surgery are controversial, and whether robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be justified as a standard treatment for rectal cancer patients needs to be clarified. This case-matched study aimed to compare the postoperative complications and short-and long-term outcomes of R-TME and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) for rectal cancer. Among 1029 patients, we identified 278 rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME. Propensity score matching was used to match this group with 278 patients who underwent L-TME. The mean follow-up period was similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 52.5±17.1 vs 51.0±13.1 months, P=0.253), as were patient characteristics. The operation time was significantly longer in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (361.6±91.9 vs 272.4±83.8min; P<0.001), whereas the conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and recovery of pain and bowel motility were similar between both groups. The rates of circumferential resection margin involvement and early complications were similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 4.7{\%} vs 5.0{\%}, P=1.000; and 23.7{\%} vs 25.9{\%}, P=0.624, respectively), as were the 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates (93.1{\%} vs 92.2{\%}, P=0.422; 79.6{\%} vs 81.8{\%}, P=0.538; 3.9{\%} vs 5.9{\%}, P=0.313, respectively). The oncologic quality, short-and long-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity in the R-TME group were comparable with those in the L-TME group.",
author = "Cho, {Min Soo} and Baek, {Se Jin} and Hyuk Hur and Min, {Byung Soh} and Baik, {Seung Hyuk} and Lee, {Kang Young} and Namkyu Kim",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1097/MD.0000000000000522",
language = "English",
volume = "94",
pages = "e522",
journal = "Medicine (United States)",
issn = "0025-7974",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "11",

}

Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. / Cho, Min Soo; Baek, Se Jin; Hur, Hyuk; Min, Byung Soh; Baik, Seung Hyuk; Lee, Kang Young; Kim, Namkyu.

In: Medicine (United States), Vol. 94, No. 11, 07.03.2015, p. e522.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

AU - Cho, Min Soo

AU - Baek, Se Jin

AU - Hur, Hyuk

AU - Min, Byung Soh

AU - Baik, Seung Hyuk

AU - Lee, Kang Young

AU - Kim, Namkyu

PY - 2015/3/7

Y1 - 2015/3/7

N2 - The true benefits of robotic surgery are controversial, and whether robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be justified as a standard treatment for rectal cancer patients needs to be clarified. This case-matched study aimed to compare the postoperative complications and short-and long-term outcomes of R-TME and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) for rectal cancer. Among 1029 patients, we identified 278 rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME. Propensity score matching was used to match this group with 278 patients who underwent L-TME. The mean follow-up period was similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 52.5±17.1 vs 51.0±13.1 months, P=0.253), as were patient characteristics. The operation time was significantly longer in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (361.6±91.9 vs 272.4±83.8min; P<0.001), whereas the conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and recovery of pain and bowel motility were similar between both groups. The rates of circumferential resection margin involvement and early complications were similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 4.7% vs 5.0%, P=1.000; and 23.7% vs 25.9%, P=0.624, respectively), as were the 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates (93.1% vs 92.2%, P=0.422; 79.6% vs 81.8%, P=0.538; 3.9% vs 5.9%, P=0.313, respectively). The oncologic quality, short-and long-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity in the R-TME group were comparable with those in the L-TME group.

AB - The true benefits of robotic surgery are controversial, and whether robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be justified as a standard treatment for rectal cancer patients needs to be clarified. This case-matched study aimed to compare the postoperative complications and short-and long-term outcomes of R-TME and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) for rectal cancer. Among 1029 patients, we identified 278 rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME. Propensity score matching was used to match this group with 278 patients who underwent L-TME. The mean follow-up period was similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 52.5±17.1 vs 51.0±13.1 months, P=0.253), as were patient characteristics. The operation time was significantly longer in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (361.6±91.9 vs 272.4±83.8min; P<0.001), whereas the conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and recovery of pain and bowel motility were similar between both groups. The rates of circumferential resection margin involvement and early complications were similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 4.7% vs 5.0%, P=1.000; and 23.7% vs 25.9%, P=0.624, respectively), as were the 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates (93.1% vs 92.2%, P=0.422; 79.6% vs 81.8%, P=0.538; 3.9% vs 5.9%, P=0.313, respectively). The oncologic quality, short-and long-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity in the R-TME group were comparable with those in the L-TME group.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929664021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929664021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MD.0000000000000522

DO - 10.1097/MD.0000000000000522

M3 - Article

VL - 94

SP - e522

JO - Medicine (United States)

JF - Medicine (United States)

SN - 0025-7974

IS - 11

ER -