RESUMEN
Our goal was to assess the impact of anastomotic leaks (ALs) on oncologic outcomes using a case-matched analysis. Patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for cancer between 2014 and 2018 were included. The main variables were the risk factor of anastomotic leak, overall survival and disease-free survival. Propensity score matching was performed according to the patient's age, co-morbidities and TNM staging as well as the type of procedure. Oncologic outcomes were analyzed. We included 488 patients and performed final analysis on 69 patients. The AL rate was 4.71% (23 patients). Intrahospital mortality was significantly higher in the AL group, at 1.3% (6 of 465) vs. 8.7% (2 of 23), p = 0.05. Three-year overall survival (OS) in the non-AL group was higher, although the difference could not be considered significant (71.5% vs. 37.3%, p = 0.082); similarly, the likelihood for impaired 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was lower, but the difference here could also not be considered significant (69.3% vs. 37.3%, p = 0.106). Age, advanced tumor stage, lymph node metastases and distant metastases were associated with higher probability of death or recurrence of disease. In contrast, minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower probability of death (HR (95% CI): 0.99 (0.14-0.72); p = 0.023) and recurrence of disease (HR (95% CI): 0.94 (0.13-0.68); p = 0.020). In an adjusted Cox regression analysis, AL, age and distant metastases were associated with poor long-term survival. Moreover, AL, age and distant metastases were associated with higher probability of recurrence of disease. Based on our results, AL is a significant factor for worse oncologic outcomes. Simple summary: we aimed to assess patients with anastomotic leaks following right hemicolectomy for cancer. These patients were matched to patients without leaks. Propensity score analysis demonstrated that anastomotic leak was a marker of worse oncologic outcomes.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Our study objective was to evaluate differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) using Senhance robotic platform vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective case - matched analysis was performed for all patients who underwent cholecystectomy from November 2018 to November 2019. RC cases were matched to LC. RC was performed using Senhance robotic platform. Propensity score matching analysis with a ratio of 1:1 (RC: LC) was performed. The groups were matched according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI). All procedures were performed by two same experienced robotic surgeons at Klaipeda University Hospital (O.D. and V.E.). Age, BMI, operative time, blood loss and length of hospital stay were collected and analysed between those patient groups. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients underwent RC or LC. There were no statistical differences between groups in concern of length of hospital stay, blood loss or complications. There were no bile duct injuries in either group, no intraoperative complications, no conversions either RC to LC or LC to open surgery. One patient in robotic group was reoperated on postoperative day 5 regarding sub-hepatic haematoma. The only statistical significance was in operative time (p < .05) which was longer in RC group. Median docking time was 12 min (range 5-23). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic cholecystectomy using Senhance robotic platform appears to be safe in comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy might be feasible in gaining robotic surgery skills.
