A Single-Center Study on the Comparison of Short-Term Efficacy of Robotic and Laparoscopic Radical Resection of Middle and Low Rectal Cancer with Da Vinci (Xi)
Luwei Niu,Wei Fu,Haixiao Fu,Kai Wang,Tengteng Li,Jun Song,Xuan Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3602726/v1
2023-01-01
Abstract:Abstract OBJECTIVE Robotic minimally invasive surgery is an important trend in the development of contemporary surgical technology. However, due to the current clinical application of robotic surgery system is in the stage of development, its status in the surgical treatment of middle and low rectal cancer has not been confirmed. The aim of this study was to compare and analyze the clinical efficacy and functional results of da Vinci (Xi)-assisted and traditional laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of middle and low rectal cancer. METHODS 82 patients with middle and low rectal cancer (tumor lower margin ≤ 10cm) were selected from the affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University from August 2020 to December 2020. According to the sequential principle, they were randomly divided into robot group (n = 41) and laparoscopy group (n = 41). Robot-assisted radical resection and laparoscopy-assisted radical resection of middle and low rectal cancer were performed respectively. The relevant clinical and functional indexes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS There was no significant difference in preoperative data between the two groups (P > 0.05). All patients completed the operation successfully and no one was converted to open surgery. The circumferential incisal margin was negative in both groups, and the resected mesorectum was intact in robot group and laparoscopy group. Compared with the laparoscopy group, the average intraoperative blood loss (55.2 ±29.8mLvs.109.5 ±58.5ml), postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery time (38.8 ±11.2hvs.50.7± 13.3h), diet recovery time (2.6 ±0.8dvs.3.4 ±1.7d) and catheter removal time (3.3 ±1.4dvs.6.7±1.9d) in the robot group were significantly reduced. The number of lymph node dissection and the rate of sphincter preservation (55% vs.35%) were better than those in the laparoscopy group, but the operation time (239.8 ±29.6 6.2vs.14.6 vs. 141.1 ±18.5 min) and the average hospitalization cost in the laparoscopy group were higher than those in the laparoscopy group (81000 ±13000 yuan vs.52000 ±8000 yuan). There was no significant difference in the mode of operation, the length of specimen resection, postoperative pathology, the grade of integrity of total mesorectal resection, postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. In addition, we found that patients in the robot group had higher satisfaction with defecation function, voiding function and sexual function. CONCLUSION Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer had comparable surgical safety and immediate postoperative outcomes, but robotic surgery was superior to conventional laparoscopic surgery in terms of the number of lymph nodes cleared, anal preservation rate, and postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function for faecal, urinary, and sexual function preservation.