Low Hartmann's procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a propensity score matching cohort study

Xubing Zhang,Shaojun Liu,Liu Liu,Zhiqiang Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03244-5

2024-06-07

BMC Gastroenterology

Abstract:This study aimed to compare low Hartmann's procedure (LHP) with abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer (RC) regarding postoperative complications.

gastroenterology & hepatology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Outcomes Compared with Conventional Open Surgery.

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Yi-Fan Wang,Xue-Yong Zheng,Xiao Liang,Hong Yu,Xiu-Jun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0480

2019-01-01

Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques

Abstract:BACKGROUND The application of laparoscopic hepatectomy is gaining momentum. However, the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are yet to be adequately evaluated. We aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LRH for HCC by comparing it with open right hepatectomy (ORH). MATERIALS AND METHODS Data of patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC from May 2007 to January 2018 in our hospital were obtained. Baseline characteristics, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors, including age, sex, preoperative therapy, tumor size, and pattern. RESULTS The original cohort included 109 patients (LRH, 41 patients; ORH, 68 patients). Of the 41 patients who underwent LRH, 8 patients (19.5%) required conversion to laparotomy. The overall morbidity was 19.5%, and no mortality in LRH was noted. After PSM, LRH was associated with a tendency of prolonged operative time (255.5 ± 93.4 minutes versus 225.9 ± 39.8 minutes, P = .08) and less intraoperative blood loss [300 (100-1200) versus 500 (200-2000) mL, P < .01]. LRH showed up a trend of less overall morbidity without statistical significance (18.4% versus 26.3%, P = .41). Moreover, the 3-year overall and disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups during a median follow-up of 19 (3-58) months for the LRH group and 23 (3-97) months for the ORH group. CONCLUSIONS LRH can be performed as safe and effective as ORH for HCC in regard to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LRH holds the benefit in less intraoperative blood loss and appears to achieve less postoperative morbidity, which could serve as a promising alternative to ORH in selected individuals.
Robotic vs laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A propensity score matching cohort study and meta-analysis

Li Song,Wen-Qiong Xu,Zheng-Qiang Wei,Gang Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i5.1280

2024-05-27

World J Gastrointest Surg

Abstract:Background: Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce. Aim: To compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery. Results: Of 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in operative time (P = 0.564), intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.314), reoperation rate (P = 0.314), lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.309), or circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate (P = 0.314) between the two groups. The meta-analysis showed patients in the RS group had fewer positive CRMs (P = 0.04), lesser estimated blood loss (P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.02), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) than patients in the LS group. Conclusion: Our study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS.
Clinical Evaluation of Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Cancer of the Low Rectum

陈伟平,滕理送,李德川,范永田,李其肯,楼荣灿

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-2785.2007.01.002

2007-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the safety of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for cancer of the low rectum. Methods The clinical data of 30 cases of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and 30 cases of conventional abdominoperineal resection selected randomly during the same period were compared. Results There were significant differences between two groups in operative blood loss [(153.0±46.9)ml in laparoscopic group vs (350.0±190.0)ml in conventional group, P0.01] , time of the bowel function recovery [(2.0±0.5)d for laparoscopic group vs (3.5±1.3)d for conventional group, P0.01 ] and cases with postoperative complications (6 cases in laparoscopic group vs 16 cases in conventional group, P0.01). No significant difference was observed between two groups in average length of bowel resected [(27.0±4.3)cm in laparoscopic group vs (24.5±4.0)cm in conventional group], average number of lymph nodes excised (21.0±7.9 in laparoscopic group vs 21.7±9.5 in conventional group). No postoperative death, local recurrence and distant metastasis were found in both groups. Conclusion Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection is a safe and effective prodedure for treating the cancer of the low rectum with advantages of less blood loss, less complications and quicker recovery as compared to conventional operation.
Postoperative morbidity following Hartmann's procedure in comparison to anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer—a population‐based study

Elin Mariusdottir,Fredrik Jörgren,Marie‐Louise Lydrup,Pamela Buchwald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.17033

IF: 3.4

2024-05-29

Colorectal Disease

Abstract:Aim There is ongoing controversy regarding the extent to which Hartmann's procedure (HP) should be used in rectal cancer treatment. This study was designed to investigate 30‐day postoperative morbidity and mortality following HP, anterior resection (AR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer using a national registry. Methods All patients operated for rectal cancer, tumour height 5–15 cm, between the years 2010 and 2017, were identified through the Swedish colorectal cancer registry. Results A total of 8476 patients were included: 1210 (14%) undergoing HP, 5406 (64%) AR and 1860 (22%) APR. HP was associated with an increased risk of intra‐abdominal infection (OR 1.7, CI 1.26–2.28, P = 0.0004) compared to AR and APR, while APR was related to an increased risk of overall complications (OR 1.18, CI 1.01–1.40, P = 0.040). No significant difference was observed in the rate of reoperations and readmissions between HP, AR and APR, and type of surgical procedure was not a risk factor for 30‐day mortality. Findings from a subgroup analysis of patients with a tumour 5–7 cm from the anal verge revealed that HP was not associated with increased risk for complications or 30‐day mortality. Conclusions For patients where AR is not appropriate HP is a valid alternative with a favourable outcome. APR was associated with the highest overall 30‐day complication rate.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Single-docking Robotic Assisted Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer below Peritoneal Reflection: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Tao Zhang,Zijia Song,Yaqi Zhang,Feng Ye,Xi Cheng,Shaodong Wang,Xiaoqian Jing,Xiaopin Ji,Ren Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-2744

IF: 3.616

2021-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of robotic assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic assisted proctectomy (LP) for rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.METHODS:We evaluated the medical records of 200 patients who underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection through a robotic (n=81) or laparoscopic (n=119) approach between Jan 2015 and Dec 2017. The data were prospectively collected, and the patients were matched at a ratio of 1:1 according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), previous abdominal surgeries, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (≤2/>2), and pathologic stage.RESULTS:After matching, each group included 74 patients. Compared to the LP group, the RP group showed shorter postoperative hospital stays (PHS) [7 (±2) vs. 9 (±2.3) d, P=0.003], shorter time to liquid diet [3 (±2) vs. 5 (±3) d, P<0.001], and shorter time to removal of catheter [6 (±2) vs. 7 (±2.3) d, p=0.014]. The operative expense was higher in the RP group [8,365 (±1,600) vs. 6,922 (±1,220) RMB, P<0.001]. The operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, and pathologic outcomes were similar between the two groups. No conversion to laparotomy, readmission, or mortality was observed in either group within 30 days after surgery. The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) were 75.2% and 88.3% (P=0.070), and overall survival (OS) were 92.9% and 93.7% (P=0.810) in the RP and the LP groups, respectively and the risk of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) was lower in the RP group (OR =0.304, 95% CI: 0.124-0.745, P=0.009).CONCLUSIONS:Compared to LP, RP is worth recommending as it has long-term survival, faster postoperative recovery, and a lower risk of LARS in patients with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection.
Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus The Open Approach In Curative Resection Of Rectal Cancer

F. L. Liu,J. J. Lin,F. Ye,L. S. Teng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147323001003800317

2010-01-01

Journal of International Medical Research

Abstract:This prospective, randomized study compared the outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with open surgery for the resection of rectal cancer. The main outcome measures were procedure time, blood loss, post-operative pain, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of hospital stay, morbidity and functional recovery. Patients in each group were similar with regard to general status, procedure types and the histopathological features of tumours. Procedure times were significantly longer with HALS versus open surgery. Analgesic requirements, surgical blood loss, time to first passing flatus, time to first oral fluids and postoperative hospital stay length were all significantly shorter in the HALS group. At a median follow-up of 16.3 months, local recurrence of tumour was not observed in either group. In this study, the HALS approach for curative resection of rectal cancer was safe and effective and may offer several potential advantages to patients in their post-operative recovery.
Laparoscopic Vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China

Zhen Yuan,Dongyan Cao,Jie Yang,Mei Yu,Keng Shen,Jiaxin Yang,Ying Zhang,Huimei Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01107

IF: 4.7

2019-01-01

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Study Objective: To compare the surgical and oncologic outcomes between open abdomen radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer. Methods: Retrospective observational study with propensity score matching was used to ensure balanced groups for ARH and LRH. One-hundred-and-ninety-eight women with cervical cancer, 99 treated using ARH and 99 using LRH, between January 2012 and December 2014. Outcomes included disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), intra-operative factors, post-operator recovery, urinary retention, and adverse events. Moreover, the inverse probability of the treatment weighting (IPTW) method was also used. Main Results: Compared with ARH, LRH was associated with a lower volume of blood loss (P < 0.001) and transfusion rate (P < 0.001), with a broader resection of the parametrium (P < 0.001). Post-operatively, the time to first flatus was shorter for LRH than ARH (P < 0.001) but the rate of urinary retention was higher for LRH (22.2%) than ARH (8.1%; P = 0.009). DFS and OS were similar between groups. By IPTW, laparoscopy was also not associated with poorer survival in terms of DFS (HR 1.52, CI 0.799-2.891, P = 0.202) or OS (HR 0.942, HR 0.425-2.09, P = 0.883). Conclusion: Compared with ARH, LRH provided better intra-operative and post-operative outcomes, with no significant difference in oncologic outcomes and survival. Urinary retention remains a clinical issue to improve with LRH. The technology of LRH has been improved in China to address the inconsistent results of oncologic outcomes in previous studies. Whether these improvements could be effective needs to be investigated in the future.
Long-term Outcomes and Propensity Score Matching Analysis: Rectal Cancer Resection for Patients with Elevated Preoperative Risk

Hao Feng,Tobias S. Schiergens,Zhi-Hai Mao,Jingkun Zhao,Xiaohui Shen,Ai-Guo Lu,Wolfgang E. Thasler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.13827

2016-01-01

Oncotarget

Abstract:BACKGROUND:It is still controversial about the treatment strategy for rectal cancer patients with elevated operative risk and elder rectal cancer patients.METHODS:This study presented a retrospective single center experience in rectal cancer proctectomy for high operative risk patients. High operative risk patient was defined as Cr-POSSUM > 5% combined with associated risk factors. 220 in 1477 consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria.RESULTS:132 patients were selected (66:66) after propensity score matching. The total complication rate between conventional open rectal resection (71 %) and laparoscopic surgery (41%) was significantly different (p = 0.0005). There is a significantly positive correlation between open surgery and advanced Dindo Classification (p = 0.02). Cr-POSSUM is positively correlated with Dindo Classification (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in survival rate among stage I~II, different age groups or different Cr-POSSUM score sub-groups. However, stage III-IV tumor patients in laparoscopic group experienced improved overall survival rate. (p < 0.0001). For patients with preoperative pulmonary or renal disease, patients in laparoscopic group also had better long term prognosis (p = 0.03, p = 0.049).CONCLUSIONS:The results demonstrate the potential advantages of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection for high operative risk patients, especially for the patients with preoperative respiratory or renal disease and stage III cancer.
[Comparative study of clinical efficacy between abdominoperineal resection and anterior resection procedure in patients with rectal cancer].

Zhanlong Shen,Yingjiang Ye,Xin Zhang,Qiwei Xie,Mujun Yin,Xiaodong Yang,Kewei Jiang,Bin Liang,Shan Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2015.04.013

2015-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare clinical efficacy between abdominoperineal resection (APR) procedure and anterior resection(AR) procedure in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS:Clinicopathological data of 309 cases with rectal cancer undergoing resection in Peking University People's Hospital from January 1998 to December 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Short-term outcomes, local recurrence, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were investigated between two groups. RESULTS:As compared to the AR group, the operative time was longer [(268.5 ± 66.7) min vs. (247.4 ± 64.2) min, P=0.005], blood loss[(668.5 ± 680.1) ml vs.(441.8 ± 478.6) ml, P=0.001] and drainage volume were more[(66.9 ± 54.7) ml vs. (49.0 ± 45.9) ml, P=0.002] in the APR group. There was no significant difference of local recurrence between the two groups, while the 5-year local recurrence rate of T3-T4 patients undergoing APR procedure (24.9%) was higher than that of AR group (13.9%)(P=0.038), especially in the patients with tumors located at 4-6 cm away from the anus verge. There were no significant differences of OS (P=0.273) and PFS (P=0.589) between two groups, while both 5-year OS and PFS of T3-T4 patients with BMI ≥ 24 undergoing APR procedure (43.1% and 42.8%) were significantly worse than those of patients undergoing AR procedure (87.9% and 76.9%, P=0.022 and P=0.041). CONCLUSIONS:The overall prognosis of patients after APR and AR is comparable. Tumor located at 4-6 cm away from the anus verge, T3-T4 stage, obese may play an important role in the worse prognosis of the patients undergoing APR procedure.
Low anterior resection syndrome and quality of life after intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched study

Y. Shen,T. Yang,H. Zeng,W. Meng,X. Deng,M. Wei,Z. Wang,Deng, X.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-023-02848-5

2023-10-08

Techniques in Coloproctology

Abstract:Our aim was to perform a propensity score-matched study to compare the long-term functional outcomes and quality of life following intersphincteric resection vs. low anterior resection (LAR) with very low anastomosis.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Comparison of outcomes of abdominoperineal resection vs low anterior resection in very-low rectal cancer

Roberta L Muldoon,Alva J Bethurum,Adriana C Gamboa,Kevin Zhang,Fei Ye,Scott E Regenbogen,Sherif Abdel-Misih,Aslam Ejaz,Paul E Wise,Matthew Silviera,Jennifer Holder-Murray,Glen C Balch,Alexander T Hawkins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2024.06.008

Abstract:Background: The management of very-low rectal cancer is one of the most challenging issues faced by general and colorectal surgeons. Many feel compelled to pursue abdominoperineal resection (APR) over low anterior resection (LAR) to optimize oncologic outcomes. This study aimed to determine differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. Methods: The United States Rectal Cancer Consortium (2010-2016) was queried for adults who underwent either APR or LAR for stage I-III rectal cancers < 5 cm from anorectal junction and met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, length of stay, complications, recurrence location, and perioperative factors. Results: A total of 431 patients with very-low rectal cancer who underwent APR or LAR were identified; 154 (35.7%) underwent APR. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. The median follow-up was 42.5 months. An analysis adjusted for demographics and pathologic stage observed no difference in disease-free survival between operative types (APR-hazard ratio [HR] = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.53-1.52, P = .70). Secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including overall survival (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.71-2.32, P = .39), complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.94-2.50, P = .12), or length of stay (estimate: 0.04, SE = 0.25, P = .54). Conclusion: We observed no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. This analysis supports the treatment of very-low rectal cancer, without sphincter involvement, by either APR or LAR.
The effect of robotic surgery on low anterior resection syndrome in patients with lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Lei Zhang,Chenhao Hu,Jiamian Zhao,Chenxi Wu,Zhe Zhang,Ruizhe Li,Ruihan Liu,Junjun She,Feiyu Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10676-3

2024-02-09

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:Many patients experience anorectal dysfunction after rectal surgery, which is known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Robotic systems have many technical advantages that may be suitable for functional preservation after low rectal resection. Thus, the study aimed to explore whether robotic surgery can reduce the incidence and severity of LARS.

surgery
Laparoscopic Vs Open Abdominoperineal Resection in the Multimodality Management of Low Rectal Cancers.

Yu-Wei Wang,Li-Yong Huang,Cheng-Li Song,Chang-Hua Zhuo,De-Bing Shi,Guo-Xiang Cai,Ye Xu,San-Jun Cai,Xin-Xiang Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i35.10174

IF: 5.374

2015-01-01

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:AIM:To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.METHODS:A total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection (OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathological results, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Disease-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection.RESULTS:No significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time (180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss (93.9 ± 60.0 mL vs 88.4 ± 55.2 mL, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes (12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications (12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia (2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P < 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time (6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission (11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications (perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed.CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Postoperative effects of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: A multicenter propensity score matched study

Kil-Yong Lee,Jaeim Lee,Seong Taek Oh,Chul Seung Lee,Nam Suk Kim,Ju Myung Song,Ri-Na Yoo,Byung Jo Choi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286562

IF: 3.7

2023-06-02

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: Although the advantages of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal (LHR) compared to open Hartmann reversal (OHR) have been reported in the literature, the number of multicenter studies with good matching investigating this topic is rare. In the present study, we aimed to confirm the advantages of LHR in terms of short-term outcomes through propensity score matching of LHR and OHR groups, using data collected from multiple institutions. Methods: Patients who underwent Hartmann reversal at six institutions under the Catholic Medical Center of the Catholic University of Korea between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2021, were included. The patients were divided into the LHR and OHR groups based on the technique used. The two groups were matched using propensity score matching (1:1 ratio, logistic regression with the nearest-neighbor method). The primary outcome was postoperative ileus (POI) frequency, and secondary outcomes were time to solid diet (days) and length of stay (days). Results: Among 337 patients, propensity score matching was performed on 322, after excluding 15 who had undergone open conversion. Of these, 63 patients were assigned to each group through propensity score matching. There was no difference in the frequency of adhesiolysis (77.8% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.503) or the operation time. (210 (IQR 159-290) vs. 233 (IQR 160-280), p = 0.718) between the two groups. As the primary outcome, the LHR group showed significantly lower POI frequency than the OHR group. (4.8% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.0041) Regarding the secondary outcomes, the LHR group showed a shorter period to solid diet than the OHR group. The length of hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the LHR group (4 vs. 6, p < 0.0001; 9 vs. 12, p<0.0001). Conclusion: LHR is an effective method to ensure faster recovery of patients after surgery compared to OHR.
Robot-assisted Vs Laparoscopic Vs Open Abdominoperineal Resections for Low Rectal Cancer: Short-term Outcomes of a Single-Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Ye Wei,Jianmin Xu,Li Ren,Qingyang Feng,Guodong He,Jingwen Chen,Wenju Chang,Dexiang Zhu,Tuo Yi,Qi Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.08.226

IF: 45.3

2017-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:3603 Background: Currently, robotic surgery for rectal cancer using da Vinci System is common. However, there is almost no clinical trial reported. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer. Methods: From September 2013 to August 2016, patients aged from 18 to 75 years, with low rectal cancer within 5 cm from anal verge, clinical T1 to T3, no distant metastases, were randomly assigned to receive either robotic procedures (RAP), laparoscopic procedures (LAP) or open surgery (OS) for APR in 1:1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was postoperative complication rate. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01985698). Results: Totally 406 patients were randomly assigned. Actually, 135 finished RAP, 131 finished LAP, and 137 finished OS (including 4 convert from LAP to OS). RAP had significantly lower postoperative complication rate (11.1%) than both LAP (21.4%, P = 0.023) and OS (27.7%, P = 0.001). Also, RAP reduced intraoperative hemorrhage (median [interquartile range], 100 [90-110] ml) than LAP (130 [100-150] ml, P < 0.001) and OS (150 [120-260] ml, P < 0.001). And RAP promoted postoperative recovery, with shorter days to first flatus (1.0 [1.0-2.0] day) than LAP (2.0 [2.0-3.0] day, P < 0.001) and OS (3.0 [2.0-4.0] day, P < 0.001), shorter days to first automatic urination (2.0 [2.0-3.0] day) than LAP (3.0 [2.0-4.0] day, P < 0.001) and OS (3.0 [2.0-4.0] day, P < 0.001), and shorter days to discharge (5.0 [5.0-6.0] days) than LAP (6.0 [5.0-7.0] days, P < 0.001) and OS (6.0 [5.0-7.0] day, P = 0.005). There was no significant difference in open conversion rate, resection margin involvement (including circumferential resection margin), number of lymph node harvested and pathological tumor stage. Conclusions: Robotic APR was safer, and reproduce equivalent surgical quality of conventional laparoscopic and open surgery. Also, it provided less injury and faster functional recovery. Clinical trial information: NCT01985698.
Robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer shows similar clinical efficacy to laparoscopic surgery: A propensity score matched study

Shen-Xiang Long,Xin-Ning Wang,Shu-Bo Tian,Yu-Fang Bi,Shen-Shuo Gao,Yu Wang,Xiao-Bo Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i6.1558

2024-06-27

World J Gastrointest Surg

Abstract:Background: Rectal cancer ranks as the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, necessitating surgical resection as the sole treatment option. Over the years, there has been a growing adoption of minimally invasive surgical techniques such as robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Robotic surgery represents an innovative modality that effectively addresses the limitations associated with traditional laparoscopic techniques. While previous studies have reported favorable perioperative outcomes for robot-assisted radical resection in rectal cancer patients, further evidence regarding its oncological safety is still warranted. Aim: To conduct a comparative analysis of perioperative and oncological outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted low anterior resection (LALAR) procedures. Methods: The clinical data of 125 patients who underwent robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and 279 patients who underwent LALAR resection at Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University from December 2019 to November 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. After performing a 1:1 propensity score matching, the patients were divided into two groups: The RALAR group and the LALAR group (111 cases in each group). Subsequently, a comparison was made between the short-term outcomes within 30 d after surgery and the 3-year survival outcomes of these two groups. Results: Compared to the LALAR group, the RALAR group exhibited a significantly earlier time to first flatus [2 (2-2) d vs 3 (3-3) d, P = 0.000], as well as a shorter time to first fluid diet [4 (3-4) d vs 5 (4-6) d, P = 0.001]. Additionally, the RALAR group demonstrated reduced postoperative indwelling catheter time [2 (1-3) d vs 4 (3-5) d, P = 0.000] and decreased length of hospital stay after surgery [5 (5-7) d vs 7(6-8) d, P = 0.009]. Moreover, there was an observed increase in total cost of hospitalization for the RALAR group compared to the LALAR group [10777 (10780-11850) dollars vs 10550 (8766-11715) dollars, P = 0.012]. No significant differences were found in terms of conversion rate to laparotomy or incidence of postoperative complications between both groups. Furthermore, no significant disparities were noted regarding the 3-year overall survival rate and 3-year disease-free survival rate between both groups. Conclusion: Robotic surgery offers potential advantages in terms of accelerated recovery of gastrointestinal and urologic function compared to LALAR resection, while maintaining similar perioperative and 3-year oncological outcomes.
Laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure for complicated diverticulitis is associated with lower superficial surgical site infections compared to open surgery with similar other outcomes: a NSQIP-based, propensity score matched analysis

Leo I. Amodu,Hazim Hakmi,Amir H. Sohail,Meredith Akerman,Patrizio Petrone,David K. Halpern,Toyooki Sonoda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02661-1

2024-10-03

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery

Abstract:Open Hartmann's procedure has traditionally been the procedure of choice to treat complicated diverticulitis. We analyzed the ACS-NSQIP database to compare outcomes in patients who underwent emergent laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure (LHP) to those who had an open Hartmann's procedure (OHP).

emergency medicine
Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Compared with Open Resection for Mid and Low Rectal Cancer: a Case-Matched Study with Long-Term Follow-Up

Xile Zhou,Fanlong Liu,Caizhao Lin,Qihan You,Jinsong Yang,Wenbin Chen,Jiahe Xu,Jianjiang Lin,Xiangming Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0616-4

2015-01-01

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Background: This study was designed to compare the long-term surgical outcomes of patients with mid and low rectal cancer after open or hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).Methods: A case-matched controlled prospective analysis of 116 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for stage I to III mid and low rectal cancer from 2005 to 2010 was performed. Contemporary patients who underwent open rectal surgery were matched to the HALS group at the ratio of 1:1. The perioperative clinical outcomes, postoperative pathology, and survival outcomes were compared between the groups.Results: The patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Ninety patients in the open group and 85 in the HALS group received sphincter-preserving surgery. HALS resulted in less blood loss and wound infection, faster return to oral diet, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and longer operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Lymph node retrieval and involvement of circumferential and distal margins were similar for both procedures. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence, disease-free, or overall survival rates were statistically similar.Conclusions: This study suggests that HALS for mid and low rectal cancer is acceptable in terms of short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival results.
Influence of Tumor Location on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes after Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study

Yang Hong,Yao Zhendan,Cui Ming,Xing Jiadi,Zhang Chenghai,Zhang Nan,Liu Maoxing,Xu Kai,Tan Fei,Su Xiangqian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07255-9

IF: 4.638

2020-01-01

BMC Cancer

Abstract:Background: This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancer (LRC) compared with mid/high rectal cancer (M/HRC). Methods: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic resection with curative intent were retrospectively reviewed between 2009 and 2015. After matched 1:1 by using propensity score analysis, perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between LRC and M/HRC groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent factors of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Results: Of 373 patients who met the criteria for inclusion, 260 patients were matched for the analysis. Laparoscopic surgery for LRC required longer operative time (P＜0.001) and more blood loss volume (P＜0.001) compared with M/HRC, and the LRC group tended to have a higher incidence of postoperative complications (18.5% vs. 10.0%, P=0.051). There was no significant difference in local recurrence between the two groups (6.2% vs. 2.3%, P=0.216), whereas distant metastasis was more frequent in LRC patients compared with M/HRC (19.2% vs. 9.2%, P=0.021). The LRC group showed significantly inferior 5-year OS (78.1% vs. 88.8%, P=0.008) and DFS (76.2% vs. 89.0%, P=0.004) compared with the M/HRC group. Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor location was an independent predictor of OS (HR=2.095, 95% CI 1.142-3.843, P=0.017) and DFS (HR=2.320, 95% CI 1.251-4.303, P=0.008). Conclusion: Tumor location of the rectal cancer significantly affected the clinical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic surgery, and it was an independent predictor of OS and DFS.
Oncological outcome following Hartmann's procedure compared with anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer—The type of procedure does not influence local recurrence or distant metastasis: A population‐based study

Elin Mariusdottir,Fredrik Jörgren,Marie‐Louise Lydrup,Pamela Buchwald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.17163

IF: 3.4

2024-09-09

Colorectal Disease

Abstract:Aim The type of surgical procedure used in rectal cancer treatment may affect cancer recurrence. The aim of this study was to determine whether the type of procedure influences oncological outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Method We gathered data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry regarding patients with TNM Stage I–III rectal cancer who underwent R0/R1 surgery from 2013 to 2017. The outcomes after Hartmann's procedure (HP), anterior resection (AR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) were compared, and a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed. The primary outcome of the study was the local recurrence rate. The secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, disease‐free survival and overall survival at 5 years as well as risk factors for local recurrence. Results A total of 4741 patients were included in the study: 614 underwent HP, 3075 underwent AR and 1052 underwent APR. Multivariable Cox regression revealed no difference in local recurrence, distant metastasis or disease‐free survival. Overall survival was higher following AR (OR 0.62, CI 0.54–0.72). Risk factors for local recurrence were intraoperative bowel perforation (OR 2.41, CI 1.33–4.40), a pT4 tumour (OR 1.93, CI 1.11–3.4) and a positive circumferential resection margin (OR 5.62, CI 3.28–9.61). Conclusions This nationwide study showed that the type of procedure did not affect the local recurrence rate or distant metastasis. In patients who are unfit for restorative surgery, HP is a viable alternative with oncological outcomes similar to those of APR.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery

Low Hartmann's procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a propensity score matching cohort study

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Outcomes Compared with Conventional Open Surgery.

Robotic vs laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A propensity score matching cohort study and meta-analysis

Clinical Evaluation of Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Cancer of the Low Rectum

Postoperative morbidity following Hartmann's procedure in comparison to anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer—a population‐based study

Single-docking Robotic Assisted Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer below Peritoneal Reflection: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus The Open Approach In Curative Resection Of Rectal Cancer

Laparoscopic Vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China

Long-term Outcomes and Propensity Score Matching Analysis: Rectal Cancer Resection for Patients with Elevated Preoperative Risk

[Comparative study of clinical efficacy between abdominoperineal resection and anterior resection procedure in patients with rectal cancer].

Low anterior resection syndrome and quality of life after intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched study

Comparison of outcomes of abdominoperineal resection vs low anterior resection in very-low rectal cancer

The effect of robotic surgery on low anterior resection syndrome in patients with lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Laparoscopic Vs Open Abdominoperineal Resection in the Multimodality Management of Low Rectal Cancers.

Postoperative effects of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: A multicenter propensity score matched study

Robot-assisted Vs Laparoscopic Vs Open Abdominoperineal Resections for Low Rectal Cancer: Short-term Outcomes of a Single-Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer shows similar clinical efficacy to laparoscopic surgery: A propensity score matched study

Laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure for complicated diverticulitis is associated with lower superficial surgical site infections compared to open surgery with similar other outcomes: a NSQIP-based, propensity score matched analysis

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Compared with Open Resection for Mid and Low Rectal Cancer: a Case-Matched Study with Long-Term Follow-Up

Influence of Tumor Location on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes after Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study

Oncological outcome following Hartmann's procedure compared with anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer—The type of procedure does not influence local recurrence or distant metastasis: A population‐based study