Propensity score‐matched analysis of the short‐term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThe advantages of robot‐assisted rectal surgery (RARS) over conventional laparoscope‐assisted rectal surgery (LARS) remain controversial. This study was performed to compare the short‐term outcomes of RARS and LARS.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data of 207 patients who had undergone either RARS (n = 97) or LARS (n = 110) for rectal cancer (RC) from 2018 to 2020. A 1:1 matched propensity score‐matched analysis was performed and the surgical outcomes of the two groups compared.ResultsAfter matching, a well‐balanced cohort of 136 patients was analyzed (n = 68 in each group), and there was no significant difference in the median operative time. The RARS group had less intraoperative blood loss than the LARS group. There were no significant differences in length of postoperative hospital stay or complication rate between the two groups. In the subgroup of lower RC, defined as the inferior edge of the tumor being within the rectum distal to the peritoneal reflection, the rate of sphincter preservation was higher in the RARS group (81.8% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.021).ConclusionThis study shows that RARS is a safe and feasible approach for RC compared with LARS, RARS having the advantage of more often preserving the sphincter.