Published online May 27, 2024. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i5.1280
Revised: February 29, 2024
Accepted: April 10, 2024
Published online: May 27, 2024
Processing time: 169 Days and 8.1 Hours
Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce.
To compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC.
We retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery.
Of 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in operative time (P = 0.564), intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.314), reoperation rate (P = 0.314), lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.309), or circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate (P = 0.314) bet
Our study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS.
Core Tip: This study compared the efficacy of robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer (RC). Our results showed that RS patients had fewer positive circumferential resection margins, less estimated blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stays, and fewer postoperative complications than did LS patients. Our findings demonstrate that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS. This study contributes to the existing evidence base and can assist surgeons and healthcare providers in making informed decisions on using RS in APR for RC.