Moghadamyeghaneh Zhobin, Phelan Michael, Smith Brian R, Stamos Michael J
1 Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California 2 Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2015 Dec;58(12):1123-9. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000475.
There are limited available data comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for rectal cancer surgery.
We sought to investigate outcomes of different surgical approaches to abdominoperineal resection in patients with rectal cancer.
The nationwide inpatient sample database was used to examine the clinical data of patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection between 2009 and 2012 in the United States. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare outcomes of different surgical approaches.
A retrospective review according to the national inpatient sample database was designed.
We included patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection between 2009 and 2012.
Outcomes of different surgical approaches to abdominoperineal resection were investigated.
We sampled 18,359 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective abdominoperineal resections. Of these, 69.5% had open surgery, 25.8% had laparoscopic surgery, and 4.7% had robotic surgery. The rate of robotic procedures increased >4-fold, from 2.1% to 8.1%, from 2009 to 2012. The conversion rate in robotic surgery was significantly lower compared with laparoscopic surgery (5.7% vs 13.4%; p < 0.01). After risk adjustment, patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic approaches had lower morbidity risks compared with those who underwent the open approach (adjusted OR = 0.77 (95% CI, 0.65-0.92), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.40-0.80); p < 0. 01). There were no significant differences in the morbidity rate of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic approaches (adjusted OR = 0.79 (95% CI, 0.55-1.14); p = 0.21). However, patients who underwent the robotic approach had significantly higher total hospital charges compared with those who underwent the laparoscopic approach (mean difference, $24,890; p < 0.01).
We could not adjust the results with some important factors, such as the tumor stage and BMI.
The use of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to abdominoperineal resection have increased between 2009 and 2012. Both minimally invasive approaches decrease morbidity rates of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection. The robotic approach has a significantly lower conversion rate compared with the laparoscopic approach. However, it had significantly higher total hospital charges compared with the laparoscopic approach.
比较直肠癌手术开放、腹腔镜和机器人手术方式的可用数据有限。
我们试图研究直肠癌患者腹会阴联合切除术不同手术方式的结果。
利用全国住院患者样本数据库检查2009年至2012年在美国接受择期腹会阴联合切除术的直肠癌患者的临床数据。进行多变量回归分析以比较不同手术方式的结果。
设计了一项基于全国住院患者样本数据库的回顾性研究。
我们纳入了2009年至2012年接受择期腹会阴联合切除术的直肠癌患者。
研究腹会阴联合切除术不同手术方式的结果。
我们抽取了18359例接受择期腹会阴联合切除术的直肠癌患者。其中,69.5%接受开放手术,25.8%接受腹腔镜手术,4.7%接受机器人手术。从2009年到2012年,机器人手术的比例增加了4倍多,从2.1%增至8.1%。机器人手术的中转率显著低于腹腔镜手术(5.7%对13.4%;p<0.01)。经过风险调整后,与接受开放手术的患者相比,接受腹腔镜和机器人手术方式的患者发病风险较低(调整后的OR=0.77(95%CI,0.65 - 0.92),0.57(95%CI,0.40 - 0.80);p<0.01)。接受腹腔镜或机器人手术方式的患者发病率无显著差异(调整后的OR=0.79(95%CI,0.55 - 1.14);p=0.21)。然而,与接受腹腔镜手术方式的患者相比,接受机器人手术方式的患者总住院费用显著更高(平均差异为24890美元;p<0.01)。
我们无法用一些重要因素(如肿瘤分期和BMI)对结果进行调整。
2009年至2012年期间,机器人和腹腔镜腹会阴联合切除术的使用有所增加。两种微创方法均降低了接受腹会阴联合切除术患者的发病率。与腹腔镜手术方式相比,机器人手术方式的中转率显著更低。然而,与腹腔镜手术方式相比,其总住院费用显著更高。