Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-port versus multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

被引:6
|
作者
Kim, Hye Jin [1 ]
Choi, Gyu-Seog [1 ,2 ]
Park, Jun Seok [1 ]
Park, Soo Yeun [1 ]
Song, Seung Ho [1 ]
Lee, Sung Min [1 ]
Jeong, Min Hye [1 ]
机构
[1] Kyungpook Natl Univ, Chilgok Hosp, Colorectal Canc Ctr, Sch Med, Daegu, South Korea
[2] Kyungpook Natl Univ, Colorectal Canc Ctr, Chilgok Hosp, 807 Hogukro, Daegu, South Korea
关键词
SURGICAL STRESS-RESPONSE; C-REACTIVE PROTEIN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; RESECTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.surg.2023.09.036
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: It is unknown whether the da Vinci single-port system performs similarly to the previous multi-port system during complicated procedures, such as rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of single-port and multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 128 patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision between July 2020 and June 2022, of whom 84 (42 each: single-port versus multi-port) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared between groups. Results: Median tumor height was similar between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 5.9 +/- 2.1 vs 5.6 +/- 1.8 cm, P = .719). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed equally. The total operative time was less (160.0 +/- 42.2 minutes vs 199.6 +/- 78.6 minutes, P = .005), the total length of incision was shorter (4.0 +/- 0.3 vs 5.4 +/- 0.7 cm, P = .003), postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2 +/- 1.7 vs 7.2 +/- 2.8 days, P = .050), and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 trended to be lower (7.3 +/- 4.7 vs 8.9 +/- 5.6 mg/ L, P = .096) in the single-port group, compared with the multi-port group. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 11.9% vs 16.6%, P = .864). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the single-port and multi-port groups, respectively. The circumferential resection margins were positive in 1 patient in the multi-port group. Conclusion: The perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic total mesorectal excision were comparable to those of multi-port robotic TME. The single-port robot can be considered a surgical option for treating rectal cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:297 / 303
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison
    Bang, Seokhwan
    Yu, Jiwoong
    Bae, Hoyoung
    Shin, Dongho
    Park, Yong Hyun
    Cho, Hyuk Jin
    Ha, U-Syn
    Lee, Ji Youl
    Hong, Sung-Hoo
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2024, 38 (12) : 1353 - 1358
  • [2] Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score-matched analysis
    Licari, Leslie Claire
    Bologna, Eugenio
    Franco, Antonio
    Ditonno, Francesco
    Manfredi, Celeste
    Huang, Jonathan
    Latchamsetty, Kalyan
    Coogan, Christopher
    Olweny, Ephrem O.
    Cherullo, Edward E.
    Chow, Alexander K.
    Vourganti, Srinivas
    Autorino, Riccardo
    EJSO, 2024, 50 (03):
  • [3] Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Lower Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
    Lin, Yueh-Chen
    Kuo, Ya-Ting
    You, Jeng-Fu
    Chern, Yih-Jong
    Hsu, Yu-Jen
    Yu, Yen-Lin
    Chiang, Jy-Ming
    Yeh, Chien-Yuh
    Hsieh, Pao-Shiu
    Liao, Chun-Kai
    CANCERS, 2022, 14 (17)
  • [4] Subxiphoid Single-Port Robotic Thymectomy Using the Single-Port Robotic System versus VATS: A Multi-Institutional, Retrospective, and Propensity Score-Matched Study
    Lee, Jun Hee
    Hwang, Jinwook
    Park, Tae Hyun
    Gu, Byung Mo
    Jung, Younggi
    Yi, Eunjue
    Lee, Sungho
    Hwang, Soon Young
    Chung, Jae ho
    Kim, Hyun Koo
    CANCERS, 2024, 16 (16)
  • [5] Patient surgical satisfaction after da Vinci® single-port and multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: propensity score-matched analysis
    Jonathan Noël
    Marcio Covas Moschovas
    Marco Sandri
    Seetharam Bhat
    Travis Rogers
    Sunil Reddy
    Cathy Corder
    Vipul Patel
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2022, 16 : 473 - 481
  • [6] A PROPENSITY MATCHED COMPARISON OF THE PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES BETWEEN SINGLE-PORT AND MULTI-PORT ROBOTIC ASSISTED PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY
    Okhawere, Kennedy E.
    Beksac, Alp Tuna
    Wilson, Michael
    Korn, Talia G.
    Meilika, Kirolos N.
    Harrison, Robert
    Morgantini, Luca
    Ahmed, Mutahar
    Mehrazin, Reza
    Abaza, Ronney
    Eun, Daniel D.
    Bhandari, Akshay
    Hemal, Ashok K.
    Porter, James
    Stifelman, Michael D.
    Kaouk, Jihad
    Crivellaro, Simone
    Badani, Ketan K.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 207 (05): : E398 - E399
  • [7] Patient surgical satisfaction after da Vinci(R) single-port and multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: propensity score-matched analysis
    Noel, Jonathan
    Moschovas, Marcio Covas
    Sandri, Marco
    Bhat, Seetharam
    Rogers, Travis
    Reddy, Sunil
    Corder, Cathy
    Patel, Vipul
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2022, 16 (02) : 473 - 481
  • [8] Transanal single-port laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer
    H. Zhang
    Y.-S. Zhang
    X.-W. Jin
    M.-Z. Li
    J.-S. Fan
    Z.-H. Yang
    Techniques in Coloproctology, 2013, 17 : 117 - 123
  • [9] Transanal single-port laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer
    Zhang, H.
    Zhang, Y. -S.
    Jin, X. -W.
    Li, M. -Z.
    Fan, J. -S.
    Yang, Z. -H.
    TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2013, 17 (01) : 117 - 123
  • [10] Single-port versus multiport robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial experiences by case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes
    Jeong, Min Hye
    Kim, Hye Jin
    Choi, Gyu-Seog
    Song, Seung Ho
    Park, Jun Seok
    Park, Soo Yeun
    Lee, Sung Min
    Na, Dong Hee
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL TREATMENT AND RESEARCH, 2023, 102 (05) : 99 - 106