Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients

• Published in: Colorectal disease 2016-11, Vol.18 (11), p.1063-1071
• Main Authors: Gorgun, E., Ozben, V., Costedio, M., Stocchi, L., Kalady, M., Remzi, F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Databases, Factual; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal - methods; Female; Humans; laparoscopy; Laparoscopy - methods; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; obesity; Obesity - complications; Operative Time; Rectal cancer; Rectal Neoplasms - etiology; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery; Rectum - surgery; Retrospective Studies; robotic surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods; short-term outcomes; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1462-8910; 1463-1318
• DOI: 10.1111/codi.13374

Aim Obesity adds to the technical difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The robotic approach has the potential to overcome this limitation because of its proposed technical advantages over laparoscopy. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the short‐term outcomes of robotic surgery (RS) vs conventional laparoscopy surgery (LS) in this patient population. Method Patients with a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 undergoing RS or LS for rectal cancer between January 2011 and June 2014 were identified from an institutional database. Perioperative parameters, oncological findings and postoperative 30‐day short‐term outcomes were compared between the RS and LS groups. Results The RS and LS groups included 29 and 27 patients, respectively. Groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics, body mass index (34.9 ± 7.2 vs 35.2 ± 5.0 kg/m2, P = 0.71), comorbidities, surgical and tumour characteristics. Comparison of the intra‐operative findings revealed no significant differences between the groups including operative time (329.0 ± 102.2 vs 294.6 ± 81.1 min, P = 0.13), blood loss (434.0 ± 612.4 vs 339.4 ± 271.9 ml, P = 0.68), resection margin involvement (6.9% vs 7.4%, P = 0.99), conversions (3.4% vs 18.5%, P = 0.09) and complications (6.9% vs 0%, P = 0.49). Regarding postoperative outcomes, there were no significant differences in morbidity except that robotic surgery was associated with a quicker return of bowel function (median 3 vs 4 days, P = 0.01) and shorter hospital stay (median 6 vs 7 days, P = 0.02). Conclusion Robotic surgery for rectal cancer in obese patients has short‐term outcomes similar to laparoscopy, but accelerated postoperative recovery.