지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2021.12
- 수록면
- 82 - 89 (8page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and disease-free and overall survival rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for rectal cancer.
Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, 234 patients underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer at two centers. Ultimately, 201 patients were enrolled. To control for different demographic factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were generated with the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative radiation. Finally, 134 patients were matched with 67 patients in the robotic surgery group and 67 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group.
Results: There was no significant difference in the pathologic stages between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. Distal margin involvement was only observed in the robotic surgery group (1/67, 1.5%). Circumferential resection margin involvement was not different between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (3/67 [4.5%] and 4/67 [6.0%], respectively, P=1.000). The quality of TME (complete, nearly complete, and incomplete) was similar between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (88.0%, 6.0%, 6.0% and 79.1%, 9.0%, 11.9%, respectively, P=0.358). The disease-free and overall survival rates were not significantly different between the groups.
Conclusion: The quality of TME and disease-free and overall survival rates between the two surgeries were similar. There was no oncologic advantage of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic surgery.
Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, 234 patients underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer at two centers. Ultimately, 201 patients were enrolled. To control for different demographic factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were generated with the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative radiation. Finally, 134 patients were matched with 67 patients in the robotic surgery group and 67 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group.
Results: There was no significant difference in the pathologic stages between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. Distal margin involvement was only observed in the robotic surgery group (1/67, 1.5%). Circumferential resection margin involvement was not different between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (3/67 [4.5%] and 4/67 [6.0%], respectively, P=1.000). The quality of TME (complete, nearly complete, and incomplete) was similar between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (88.0%, 6.0%, 6.0% and 79.1%, 9.0%, 11.9%, respectively, P=0.358). The disease-free and overall survival rates were not significantly different between the groups.
Conclusion: The quality of TME and disease-free and overall survival rates between the two surgeries were similar. There was no oncologic advantage of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic surgery.
목차
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
참고문헌 (30)
참고문헌 신청
Heald RJ / 1982 / The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery: the clue to pelvic recurrence? / Br J Surg 69:613~616
Heald RJ / 1986 / Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer / Lancet 1:1479~1482
Bulow S / 2003 / Recurrence and survival after mesorectal excision for rectal cancer / Br J Surg 90:974~980
Nagtegaal ID / 2002 / Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen : clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control / J Clin Oncol 20:1729~1734
Kim HJ / 2018 / The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer : a propensity score-matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery / Colorectal Dis 20:O103~13
Heald RJ / 1986 / Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer / Lancet 1:1479~1482
Bulow S / 2003 / Recurrence and survival after mesorectal excision for rectal cancer / Br J Surg 90:974~980
Nagtegaal ID / 2002 / Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen : clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control / J Clin Oncol 20:1729~1734
Kim HJ / 2018 / The impact of robotic surgery on quality of life, urinary and sexual function following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer : a propensity score-matched analysis with laparoscopic surgery / Colorectal Dis 20:O103~13
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Update in 2015
Cancer Research and Treatment
2016 .01
-
The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques
Journal of Korean Medical Science
2015 .01
-
Early And Late Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Robotic And Laparoscopic Approach with Propensity Score Matching
대한외과학회 학술대회 초록집
2020 .11
-
Reconsideration of the Safety of Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Cancer
Annals of Coloproctology
2019 .01
-
Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery
대한임상종양학회 학술대회지
2016 .02
-
Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
2022 .07
-
Single‑port versus multiport robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial experiences by case‑matched analysis of short‑term outcomes
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
2023 .08
-
Comparison of oncologic outcomes among the open, laparoscopic-assisted and robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery
대한임상종양학회 학술대회지
2019 .02
-
Robotic Rectal Surgery - Do we Still Need More Evidence in the Real World?
대한임상종양학회 학술대회지
2015 .02
-
Robotic Rectal Surgery : Comparison of Short-term Outcomes
대한외과학회 학술대회 초록집
2017 .11
-
대장암의 로봇 수술
대한의사협회지
2022 .09
-
Clinical and Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery in Elderly Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Multicenter Study
대한외과학회 학술대회 초록집
2021 .05
-
Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer : systematic review and meta-analysis
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
2015 .09
-
Laparoscopic Surgery
대한외과학회 학술대회 초록집
2020 .11
-
Issues in adopting robotic surgery
대한임상종양학회 학술대회지
2019 .02
-
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: Case-Matched Study of Short-Term Outcomes
Cancer Research and Treatment
2016 .01
-
Optimal Complete Rectum Mobilization Focused on the Anatomy of the Pelvic Fascia and Autonomic Nerves: 30 Years of Experience at Severance Hospital
Yonsei Medical Journal
2021 .01
-
Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery : Current Status
대한임상종양학회 학술대회지
2016 .02
-
Initial local excision for clinical T1 rectal cancer showed comparable overall survival despite high local recurrence rate: a propensity-matched analysis
Annals of Coloproctology
2022 .04
-
외과 영역에서 로봇 수술의 적용
대한의사협회지
2021 .10
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0