Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

It remains controversial whether the advantages of robotic-assisted surgery are beneficial for rectal cancer (RC). The study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) compared with those of conventional laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery. We retrospectivel...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of robotic surgery 2022-04, Vol.16 (2), p.323-331
Main Authors: Sueda, Toshinori, Tei, Mitsuyoshi, Nishida, Kentaro, Yoshikawa, Yukihiro, Matsumura, Tae, Koga, Chikato, Wakasugi, Masaki, Miyagaki, Hiromichi, Kawabata, Ryohei, Tsujie, Masanori, Hasegawa, Junichi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abdomen
Abdominal surgery
Body mass index
Body size
Cameras
Cancer
Chemotherapy
Classification
Colonoscopy
Colorectal cancer
Hospitals
Humans
Laparoscopy
Laparoscopy - methods
Lymphatic system
Matching
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Minimally Invasive Surgery
Mortality
Original Article
Ostomy
Patients
Pelvis
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Postoperative Complications - surgery
Propensity Score
Rectal Neoplasms - pathology
Rectal Neoplasms - surgery
Rectum
Retrospective Studies
Robotic surgery
Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods
Robotics
Surgeons
Surgery
Treatment Outcome
Urology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:It remains controversial whether the advantages of robotic-assisted surgery are beneficial for rectal cancer (RC). The study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) compared with those of conventional laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery. We retrospectively analyzed 539 consecutive patients with stage I–IV RC who had undergone elective surgery between January 2010 and December 2020, using propensity score-matched analysis. After propensity score matching, we enrolled 200 patients ( n  = 100 in each groups). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in terms of age ( p  = 0.04) and body mass index ( p  
ISSN:1863-2483
1863-2491
DOI:10.1007/s11701-021-01243-2