Comparing robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomes
BackgroundRobotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) is increasingly used for rectal cancer, but its long-term benefits over laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) remain debated. While RAP offers technical advantages, its clinical equivalence requires further validation, particularly in anatomically challenging cas...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2025-08-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Surgery |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2025.1628649/full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849405830972047360 |
|---|---|
| author | Wenpeng Wang Jia Liu Jiefu Wang Jinghao Huang Junfeng Wang |
| author_facet | Wenpeng Wang Jia Liu Jiefu Wang Jinghao Huang Junfeng Wang |
| author_sort | Wenpeng Wang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | BackgroundRobotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) is increasingly used for rectal cancer, but its long-term benefits over laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) remain debated. While RAP offers technical advantages, its clinical equivalence requires further validation, particularly in anatomically challenging cases.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of all eligible patients who underwent RAP or LP for rectal cancer at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital between 2019 and 2024.ResultsIn the overall cohort, RAP demonstrated significantly longer operative times (246.69 vs. 174.53 min, p < 0.001), greater blood loss (109.77 vs. 57.58 ml, p < 0.001), and higher costs (117,030.88 vs. 81,054.16 yuan, p < 0.001) compared to LP, with only a marginally shorter postoperative stay (8.47 vs. 8.64 days, p < 0.05). In terms of postoperative complications, RAP showed a trend towards fewer overall Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications (1.2% vs. 6.6%) compared to LP, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.064). There were no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.575) or overall survival (OS) (p = 0.619) between the two groups. For the subgroup analysis of rectal cancers ≤ 5 cm from the anus, RAP achieved superior surgical precision, with 100% negative circumferential resection margin (CRM) (vs. 87.1% in LP, p = 0.042) and 100% complete mesorectal integrity (vs. 83.9% in LP, p = 0.053), alongside faster functional recovery (time to first flatus: 3.47 vs. 3.90 days, p = 0.034; time to urination: 2.10 vs. 2.65 days, p = 0.007). Recurrence rates were lower with RAP (10% vs. 19.4%), though survival outcomes remained similar between RAP and LP (p = 0.253)ConclusionWhile RAP incurs longer operative times and higher costs, it demonstrates superior precision in anatomically complex cases, evidenced by improved CRM status and mesorectal preservation. Although survival outcomes remain comparable, RAP's advantages in functional recovery and potential recurrence reduction warrant further investigation. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8faa4e397a6f42f09776e68255b66631 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2296-875X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-08-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Surgery |
| spelling | doaj-art-8faa4e397a6f42f09776e68255b666312025-08-20T03:36:34ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Surgery2296-875X2025-08-011210.3389/fsurg.2025.16286491628649Comparing robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomesWenpeng Wang0Jia Liu1Jiefu Wang2Jinghao Huang3Junfeng Wang4Department of Colorectal Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Tianjin, ChinaDepartment of Colorectal Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Tianjin, ChinaDepartment of Colorectal Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Tianjin, ChinaDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology; The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University), Shenzhen, ChinaDepartment of Colorectal Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Tianjin, ChinaBackgroundRobotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) is increasingly used for rectal cancer, but its long-term benefits over laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) remain debated. While RAP offers technical advantages, its clinical equivalence requires further validation, particularly in anatomically challenging cases.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of all eligible patients who underwent RAP or LP for rectal cancer at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital between 2019 and 2024.ResultsIn the overall cohort, RAP demonstrated significantly longer operative times (246.69 vs. 174.53 min, p < 0.001), greater blood loss (109.77 vs. 57.58 ml, p < 0.001), and higher costs (117,030.88 vs. 81,054.16 yuan, p < 0.001) compared to LP, with only a marginally shorter postoperative stay (8.47 vs. 8.64 days, p < 0.05). In terms of postoperative complications, RAP showed a trend towards fewer overall Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications (1.2% vs. 6.6%) compared to LP, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.064). There were no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.575) or overall survival (OS) (p = 0.619) between the two groups. For the subgroup analysis of rectal cancers ≤ 5 cm from the anus, RAP achieved superior surgical precision, with 100% negative circumferential resection margin (CRM) (vs. 87.1% in LP, p = 0.042) and 100% complete mesorectal integrity (vs. 83.9% in LP, p = 0.053), alongside faster functional recovery (time to first flatus: 3.47 vs. 3.90 days, p = 0.034; time to urination: 2.10 vs. 2.65 days, p = 0.007). Recurrence rates were lower with RAP (10% vs. 19.4%), though survival outcomes remained similar between RAP and LP (p = 0.253)ConclusionWhile RAP incurs longer operative times and higher costs, it demonstrates superior precision in anatomically complex cases, evidenced by improved CRM status and mesorectal preservation. Although survival outcomes remain comparable, RAP's advantages in functional recovery and potential recurrence reduction warrant further investigation.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2025.1628649/fulllaparoscopyproctectomyrectal neoplasmsrobotic surgical proceduressurvival analysis |
| spellingShingle | Wenpeng Wang Jia Liu Jiefu Wang Jinghao Huang Junfeng Wang Comparing robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomes Frontiers in Surgery laparoscopy proctectomy rectal neoplasms robotic surgical procedures survival analysis |
| title | Comparing robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomes |
| title_full | Comparing robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomes |
| title_fullStr | Comparing robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomes |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomes |
| title_short | Comparing robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomes |
| title_sort | comparing robot assisted vs laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer surgical and oncological outcomes |
| topic | laparoscopy proctectomy rectal neoplasms robotic surgical procedures survival analysis |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2025.1628649/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT wenpengwang comparingrobotassistedvslaparoscopicproctectomyforrectalcancersurgicalandoncologicaloutcomes AT jialiu comparingrobotassistedvslaparoscopicproctectomyforrectalcancersurgicalandoncologicaloutcomes AT jiefuwang comparingrobotassistedvslaparoscopicproctectomyforrectalcancersurgicalandoncologicaloutcomes AT jinghaohuang comparingrobotassistedvslaparoscopicproctectomyforrectalcancersurgicalandoncologicaloutcomes AT junfengwang comparingrobotassistedvslaparoscopicproctectomyforrectalcancersurgicalandoncologicaloutcomes |