Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Oncol.
Sec. Surgical Oncology
Volume 14 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1507323
This article is part of the Research Topic Recent Advances and New Challenges in Minimally Invasive Surgery and Chemotherapy for Colorectal Cancer-volume 2 View all articles

Comparative Study of Robotic-Assisted vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

Provisionally accepted
Wenpeng Wang Wenpeng Wang 1Jia Liu Jia Liu 1*Jiefu Wang Jiefu Wang 1Li Li Li Li 2*Dalu Kong Dalu Kong 1*Junfeng Wang Junfeng Wang 1*
  • 1 Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China
  • 2 Chu Hsien-I Memorial Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Colorectal cancer (CRC) surgeries are commonly performed using either robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) or laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS). This study aimed to compare clinical and surgical outcomes between RACS and LCS for CRC patients. We included 225 patients from Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital (TJMUCH) between January 2021 and June 2024, divided into RACS (n=82) and LCS (n=143) groups. Data on demographics, clinicopathological variables, surgical parameters, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RACS was associated with longer surgery durations (median: 218.5 vs. 165 minutes) and greater blood loss (median: 100 vs. 50 mL) compared to LCS (p < 0.001 for both). Additionally, the median hospitalization cost was notably higher for RACS at 117,822 RMB compared to 78,174 RMB for LCS (p < 0.0001).RACS was used more frequently for proctectomy (87.80% vs. 72.48%). No significant differences were found in lymph node dissection (LND), postoperative hospital stay, conversion to open surgery, or postoperative complications between the groups (p > 0.05). Anastomotic leakage was the most common complication in both groups (RACS: 3.66%, LCS: 4.20%), with no significant difference in incidence (p = 0.876). To reduce bias due to surgical site, cases of rectal and sigmoid colon cancer were singled out. Hierarchical analysis showed significant differences still remained in surgical duration, blood loss, and surgical site distribution for proctectomy and sigmoid colon resection (p < 0.001). RACS did not show a clear advantage in surgical field exposure or tissue retraction. RACS, despite superior visualization, involved longer operative times and more blood loss than LCS. Both techniques had similar clinical outcomes, with LCS offering specific technical advantages.

    Keywords: robotic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, Colectomy, Proctectomy, colorectal cancer Statements & Declarations

    Received: 07 Oct 2024; Accepted: 13 Dec 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Wang, Liu, Wang, Li, Kong and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Jia Liu, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China
    Li Li, Chu Hsien-I Memorial Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China
    Dalu Kong, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China
    Junfeng Wang, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.