Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F method vs conventional robotic resection for lower rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robotic resection using the natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F method (R-NOSES I-F) is a novel minimally invasive surgical strategy for the treatment of lower rectal cancer. However, the current literature on this method is limited to case reports, and further investigation into its safety and feasibility is warranted. AIM: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of R-NOSES I-F for the treatment of low rectal cancer. METHODS: From September 2018 to February 2022, 206 patients diagnosed with low rectal cancer at First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were included in this retrospective analysis. Of these patients, 22 underwent R-NOSES I-F surgery (R-NOSES I-F group) and 76 underwent conventional robotic-assisted low rectal cancer resection (RLRC group). Clinicopathological data of all patients were collected and analyzed. Postoperative outcomes and prognoses were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. RESULTS: Patients in the R-NOSES I-F group had a significantly lower visual analog score for pain on postoperative day 1 (1.7 ± 0.7 vs 2.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.003) and shorter postoperative anal venting time (2.7 ± 0.6 vs 3.5 ± 0.7, P < 0.001) than those in the RLRC group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sex, age, body mass index, tumor size, TNM stage, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, or inflammatory response (P > 0.05). Postoperative anal and urinary functions, as assessed by Wexner, low anterior resection syndrome, and International Prostate Symptom Scale scores, were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). Long-term follow-up revealed no significant differences in the rates of local recurrence and distant metastasis between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: R-NOSES I-F is a safe and effective minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of lower rectal cancer. It improves pain relief, promotes gastrointestinal function recovery, and helps avoid incision-related complications.

Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China.

BACKGROUND: Reports in the field of robotic surgery for rectal cancer are increasing year by year. However, most of these studies enroll patients at a relatively early stage and have small sample sizes. In fact, studies only on patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and with relatively large sample sizes are lacking. AIM: To investigate whether the short-term outcomes differed between robotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) and laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy (LAP) for LARC. METHODS: The clinicopathological data of patients with LARC who underwent robotic- or laparoscopic-assisted radical surgery between January 2015 and October 2019 were collected retrospectively. To reduce patient selection bias, we used the clinical baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients as covariates for propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LAP group, the RAP group had less intraoperative blood loss, lower volume of pelvic cavity drainage, less time to remove the pelvic drainage tube and urinary catheter, longer distal resection margin and lower rates of conversion (P < 0.05). However, the time to recover bowel function, the harvested lymph nodes, the postoperative length of hospital stay, and the rate of unplanned readmission within 30 days postoperatively showed no difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The rates of total complications and all individual complications were similar between the RAP and LAP groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study indicated that RAP is a safe and feasible method for LARC with better short-term outcomes than LAP, but we have to admit that the clinically significant of part of indicators are relatively small in the practical situation.

Robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer based on propensity score matching: short-term outcomes at a high-capacity center.

Reports in the field of robotic surgery for gastric cancer are increasing. However, studies only on patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are lacking. This retrospective study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC. From December 2014 to November 2019, 683 consecutive patients with AGC underwent mini-invasive assisted distal gastrectomy. Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce patient selection bias. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LADG group, the RADG group was associated with less operative blood loss, a lower rate of postoperative blood transfusion, less volume of abdominal drainage, less time to remove abdominal drainage tube, retrieved more lymph node, and lower rates of surgical complications and pancreatic fistula (P <0.05). However, the time to recovery bowel function, the length of postoperative stay, the rates of other subgroups of complications and unplanned readmission were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). This study suggests that RADG is a safe and feasible technique with better short-term outcomes than LADG for AGC.