Background: This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic (RRC-IA) versus laparoscopic (LRC-IA) right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis based on a large European multicentric cohort of patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. Methods: Elective curative-intent RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed between 2014 and 2020 were selected from the MERCY Study Group database. The two PSM-groups were compared for operative and postoperative outcomes, and survival rates. Results: Initially, 596 patients were selected, including 194 RRC-IA and 402 LRC-IA patients. After PSM, 298 patients (149 per group) were compared. There was no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA in terms of operative time, intraoperative complication rate, conversion to open surgery, postoperative morbidity (19.5% in RRC-IA vs. 26.8% in LRC-IA; p = 0.17), or 5-yr survival (80.5% for RRC-IA and 74.7% for LRC-IA; p = 0.94). R0 resection was obtained in all patients, and > 12 lymph nodes were harvested in 92.3% of patients, without group-related differences. RRC-IA procedures were associated with a significantly higher use of indocyanine green fluorescence than LRC-IA (36.9% vs. 14.1%; OR: 3.56; 95%CI 2.02–6.29; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Within the limitation of the present analyses, there is no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed for right colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

Right Colectomy with Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A European Multicenter Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Procedures

de'Angelis N.
Co-primo
;
Carcoforo P.;Aisoni F.
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Carra M. C.
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Urbani A.
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
2023

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic (RRC-IA) versus laparoscopic (LRC-IA) right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis based on a large European multicentric cohort of patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. Methods: Elective curative-intent RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed between 2014 and 2020 were selected from the MERCY Study Group database. The two PSM-groups were compared for operative and postoperative outcomes, and survival rates. Results: Initially, 596 patients were selected, including 194 RRC-IA and 402 LRC-IA patients. After PSM, 298 patients (149 per group) were compared. There was no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA in terms of operative time, intraoperative complication rate, conversion to open surgery, postoperative morbidity (19.5% in RRC-IA vs. 26.8% in LRC-IA; p = 0.17), or 5-yr survival (80.5% for RRC-IA and 74.7% for LRC-IA; p = 0.94). R0 resection was obtained in all patients, and > 12 lymph nodes were harvested in 92.3% of patients, without group-related differences. RRC-IA procedures were associated with a significantly higher use of indocyanine green fluorescence than LRC-IA (36.9% vs. 14.1%; OR: 3.56; 95%CI 2.02–6.29; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Within the limitation of the present analyses, there is no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed for right colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.
2023
De'Angelis, N.; Piccoli, M.; Casoni Pattacini, G.; Winter, D. C.; Carcoforo, P.; Celentano, V.; Coccolini, F.; Di Saverio, S.; Frontali, A.; Fuks, D.;...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
World j surg - 2023 - de_Angelis - Right Colectomy .pdf

solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: versione editoriale
Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 594.56 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
594.56 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2535059
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact