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.

Role of minimally invasive techniques in gastrointestinal surgery:Current status and future perspectives

In recent years,the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer has remained high.Currently,surgical resection is still the most effective method for treating gastrointestinal cancer.Traditionally,radical surgery depends on open surgery.However,traditional open surgery inflicts great trauma and is associated with a slow recovery.Minimally invasive surgery,which aims to reduce postoperative complications and accelerate postoperative recovery,has been rapidly developed in the last two decades;it is increasingly used in the field of gastrointestinal surgery and widely used in early-stage gastrointestinal cancer.Nevertheless,many operations for gastrointestinal cancer treatment are still performed by open surgery.One reason for this may be the challenges of minimally invasive technology,especially when operating in narrow spaces,such as within the pelvis or near the upper edge of the pancreas.Moreover,some of the current literature has questioned oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer.Overall,the current evidence suggests that minimally invasive techniques are safe and feasible in gastrointestinal cancer surgery,but most of the studies published in this field are retrospective studies and casematched studies.Large-scale randomized prospective studies are needed to further support the application of minimally invasive surgery.In this review,we summarize several common minimally invasive methods used to treat gastrointestinal cancer and discuss the advances in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer in detail.