Suppr超能文献

比较腹腔镜或机器人低位前切除术与开放手术治疗直肠癌患者的结局:NCDB(2010-2015 年)的倾向匹配分析。

Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010-2015).

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.

Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 12631 E. 17th Ave., C313, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2020 Nov;34(11):4754-4771. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07252-5. Epub 2019 Nov 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer is controversial due to concerns of the oncologic efficacy and the difficulties of a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), for the period 2010-2015, perioperative outcomes and overall survival (OS) in patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection (LLAR or RLAR) were compared to open LAR (OLAR) after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

26,047 patients underwent LAR: 4062 (16%) RLAR, 9236 (35%) LLAR, and 12,749 (49%) OLAR. Patient and clinical tumor characteristics were similar between groups after matching. The conversion rates among patients undergoing LLAR and RLAR were 15% and 8%, respectively. In matched OLAR and LLAR patients, longitudinal and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 4.1% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days, (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.5% and 7.0% (p = 0.112); OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 95.5%, 83.7%, and 72.0% and 95.9%, 86.3%, and 76.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). In matched OLAR and RLAR patients, longitudinal and CRM were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 3.9% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.1% and 7.9%, (p = 0.010); and OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96.2%, 86.5%, and 77.1% and 97.5%, 89.4%, and 79.7%, respectively (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this national sample of propensity matched patients with rectal cancer who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic sphincter-saving rectal resection, only small differences in terms of resection margin status, length of stay, readmission, and overall survival were revealed. With acknowledgement of the limitations introduced by selection bias, our data indicate that each of the evaluated operative techniques results in acceptable outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

摘要

背景

由于对肿瘤学疗效和腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术(TME)难度的担忧,直肠癌的微创切除术存在争议。

方法

利用国家癌症数据库(NCDB),在 2010 年至 2015 年期间,对接受腹腔镜或机器人低位前切除术(LLAR 或 RLAR)的直肠癌患者的围手术期结果和总生存期(OS)与开放低位前切除术(OLAR)进行了比较,并在倾向评分匹配后进行了比较。

结果

26047 例患者接受了 LAR:4062 例(16%)RLAR、9236 例(35%)LLAR 和 12749 例(49%)OLAR。在匹配后,各组患者的患者和临床肿瘤特征相似。行 LLAR 和 RLAR 的患者转化率分别为 15%和 8%。在匹配的 OLAR 和 LLAR 患者中,纵向和环周切缘(CRM)阳性率分别为 5.4%和 3.2%(p<0.001)和 5.5%和 4.1%(p<0.001);住院时间分别为 6 天和 5 天(p<0.001);需要再次入院的分别为 6.5%和 7.0%(p=0.112);1、3 和 5 年的 OS 分别为 95.5%、83.7%和 72.0%和 95.9%、86.3%和 76.4%(p<0.001)。在匹配的 OLAR 和 RLAR 患者中,纵向和 CRM 阳性率分别为 5.4%和 3.2%(p<0.001)和 5.5%和 3.9%(p<0.001);住院时间分别为 6 天和 5 天(p<0.001);再次入院率分别为 6.1%和 7.9%(p=0.010);1、3 和 5 年的 OS 分别为 96.2%、86.5%和 77.1%和 97.5%、89.4%和 79.7%(p=0.001)。

结论

在这项针对接受开放、腹腔镜或机器人保肛直肠切除术的直肠癌患者的全国性倾向评分匹配患者样本中,仅在切缘状态、住院时间、再入院和总生存方面存在微小差异。在承认选择偏倚带来的局限性的情况下,我们的数据表明,评估的每种手术技术都为直肠癌患者带来了可接受的结果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验