Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Medium-Term Comparative Outcomes from a Multicenter Study. Issue 4 (July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Corbellini, Carlo; Biffi, Roberto; Luca, Fabrizio; Chiappa, Antonio; Costa, Stefano; Bertani, Emilio; Bona, Stefano; Lombardi, Davide; Tamayo, Darina; Botteri, Edoardo; Andreoni, Bruno
• Is Part Of: Tumori. Volume 102:Issue 4(2016)
• Page Start: 414
• Page End: 421
• Publication Date: 2016-07
• Subjects: Laparoscopic surgery -- Medium-term outcome -- Open surgery -- Rectal cancer -- Rectal cancer resection -- Robotic surgery; Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.5301/tj.5000533
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-8916

Abstract

Purpose: Several studies have demonstrated the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic (LS) and open (OS) rectal cancer surgeries and have shown how challenging LS may become. Robotic surgery (RS) has emerged as a practical alternative, offering interesting advantages in comparison to both LS and OS. The aim of this study is to resolve the clinicopathologic outcome advantages of RS with respect to OS and LS techniques. Methods: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing OS, RS, or LS were evaluated within the period from April 2009 to August 2011. The evaluations were carried out in 4 Italian hospitals. Perioperative clinicopathologic data, postoperative complications, and 3-year overall and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were analyzed. Results: A total of 160 patients (94 male, 66 female) were included. A total of 105 patients underwent mini-invasive procedure (40 LS; 65 RS), whereas OS was performed in 55 patients. Anterior resection of rectal cancer was the most performed surgical procedure (139; 87%). Median operation time was significantly longer in the RS group (p<0.01). Regarding complication rates and quality of the surgical specimen evaluation, no statistical difference was found among the 3 groups. The shortest hospital stay (p<0.01) was obtained from the LS and RS groups. The median follow-up was 33 months without any significant difference in overall and DFS rates. Conclusions: Although RS for rectal cancer requires more time to be performed than LS and OS techniques, the analysis shows comparatively the feasibility and safety of RS in terms of perioperative clinicopathologic and medium-term outcomes.