Comparing Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer
Author Information
Author(s): Hamamoto Hiroki, Ota Masato, Shima Takafumi, Kuramoto Toru, Kitada Kazuya, Taniguchi Kohei, Asakuma Mitsuhiro, Oura Yasuhiro, Ito Yuri, Lee Sang‐Woong
Primary Institution: Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University
Hypothesis
This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and perioperative costs of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal cancer using a real-world database.
Conclusion
Robotic surgery was associated with better outcomes than laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgical site infection and respiratory failure rates, but the total medical costs were comparable.
Supporting Evidence
- The robotic group had a lower surgical site infection rate (2.9% vs. 1.5%, p=0.010).
- The robotic group had a lower respiratory failure rate (1.3% vs. 0.6%, p=0.049).
- The operative medical costs of robotic surgery were significantly higher than those of laparoscopic surgery (1,312,462 vs. 1,291,371 JPY, p=0.013).
- There was no significant difference in the total medical costs between robotic and laparoscopic surgery (1,895,822 vs. 1,862,439 JPY, p=0.051).
Takeaway
Doctors compared two types of surgery for rectal cancer to see which one is better and found that robotic surgery has fewer infections, but costs more.
Methodology
The study analyzed data from patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery for rectal cancer between January 2018 and January 2021, using propensity score matching to compare outcomes.
Potential Biases
The criteria for defining main diseases may be open to interpretation, potentially affecting the results.
Limitations
The DPC dataset did not include important information such as intraoperative and histological outcomes, and the learning curves of the surgeons may not have been considered.
Participant Demographics
The study included patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery for rectal cancer, with a mix of male and female participants.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p=0.051
Confidence Interval
95% CI; −3374 to −1723$
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website