Short-term postoperative outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are equivalent.
Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis
Minimally invasive surgery
Proctocolectomy
Restorative
Robotic surgical procedures
Journal
Techniques in coloproctology
ISSN: 1128-045X
Titre abrégé: Tech Coloproctol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9613614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
18
11
2018
accepted:
17
02
2019
pubmed:
4
4
2019
medline:
9
1
2020
entrez:
4
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Minimally invasive approaches have become the standard of care for ileal pouch-anal anastomoses (IPAA). There are few reports comparing outcomes following a laparoscopic versus robotic approach. Our aim was to determine if there were any differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes following IPAA performed laparoscopically versus robotically. A retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic and robotic IPAA performed between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018 was carried out. Patients included were adult patients who underwent a proctectomy and IPAA utilizing either a laparoscopic or robotic approach. Data collected included patient demographics, operative variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes. A total of 132 patients had a minimally invasive IPAA; 58 were performed laparoscopically and 74 robotically. Less than half the patients were female (n = 55; 41.7%) with a median age of 37 years (range 18-68 years). The majority of patients had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (n = 103; 78.0%) with medically refractory disease (n = 87; 65.9%). A greater proportion of patients in the laparoscopic cohort had a prolonged length of stay (n = 27; 46.6% versus n = 18; 24.3%; p < 0.001) and a two-stage approach (n = 56; 96.6% versus n = 37; 50%; p < 0.001), but there were no differences in the rates between the laparoscopic versus robotic cohorts of superficial surgical site infection (6.9% versus 6.8%; p = 0.99), peripouch abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), anastomotic leak (6.9% versus 2.7%; p = 0.21), pelvic abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), and pelvic sepsis (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), readmission (24.1% versus 17.6%; p = 0.35) or reoperation (6.9% versus 5.4%; p = 0.72). On multivariable analysis, only male sex remained predictive of prolonged length of stay, and a robotic approach trended toward a decreased rate of prolonged length of stay. Laparoscopic and robotic IPAA have equivalent postoperative morbidity underscoring the safety of the continued expansion of the robotic platform for pouch surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive approaches have become the standard of care for ileal pouch-anal anastomoses (IPAA). There are few reports comparing outcomes following a laparoscopic versus robotic approach. Our aim was to determine if there were any differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes following IPAA performed laparoscopically versus robotically.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic and robotic IPAA performed between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018 was carried out. Patients included were adult patients who underwent a proctectomy and IPAA utilizing either a laparoscopic or robotic approach. Data collected included patient demographics, operative variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 132 patients had a minimally invasive IPAA; 58 were performed laparoscopically and 74 robotically. Less than half the patients were female (n = 55; 41.7%) with a median age of 37 years (range 18-68 years). The majority of patients had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (n = 103; 78.0%) with medically refractory disease (n = 87; 65.9%). A greater proportion of patients in the laparoscopic cohort had a prolonged length of stay (n = 27; 46.6% versus n = 18; 24.3%; p < 0.001) and a two-stage approach (n = 56; 96.6% versus n = 37; 50%; p < 0.001), but there were no differences in the rates between the laparoscopic versus robotic cohorts of superficial surgical site infection (6.9% versus 6.8%; p = 0.99), peripouch abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), anastomotic leak (6.9% versus 2.7%; p = 0.21), pelvic abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), and pelvic sepsis (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), readmission (24.1% versus 17.6%; p = 0.35) or reoperation (6.9% versus 5.4%; p = 0.72). On multivariable analysis, only male sex remained predictive of prolonged length of stay, and a robotic approach trended toward a decreased rate of prolonged length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Laparoscopic and robotic IPAA have equivalent postoperative morbidity underscoring the safety of the continued expansion of the robotic platform for pouch surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30941619
doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-01953-8
pii: 10.1007/s10151-019-01953-8
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
259-266Références
Br J Surg. 2002 Feb;89(2):194-200
pubmed: 11856133
Lancet. 2005 May 14-20;365(9472):1718-26
pubmed: 15894098
Ann Surg. 2006 May;243(5):667-70; discussion 670-2
pubmed: 16633002
Surg Endosc. 2007 Oct;21(10):1701-8
pubmed: 17353988
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2007;16(3):187-91
pubmed: 17573624
Ann Surg. 2008 Jul;248(1):1-7
pubmed: 18580199
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):CD006267
pubmed: 19160273
Am Surg. 2010 Apr;76(4):428-35
pubmed: 20420256
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Sep;211(3):377-83
pubmed: 20800195
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011 Oct;26(10):1317-27
pubmed: 21750927
Colorectal Dis. 2012 Jul;14(7):883-6
pubmed: 21899706
J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 Mar;16(3):587-94
pubmed: 21964583
Dis Colon Rectum. 2012 Apr;55(4):387-92
pubmed: 22426261
Ann Surg. 2012 Dec;256(6):1045-8
pubmed: 22609840
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Nov;19(12):3727-36
pubmed: 22752371
Ann Surg. 2013 Aug;258(2):275-82
pubmed: 23360923
Dis Colon Rectum. 2013 Apr;56(4):458-66
pubmed: 23478613
Dis Colon Rectum. 2014 Jan;57(1):5-22
pubmed: 24316941
JAMA Surg. 2014 Feb;149(2):177-84
pubmed: 24352653
Br J Surg. 2014 Aug;101(9):1160-5
pubmed: 24916184
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014 Jun 15;6(6):184-93
pubmed: 24936229
JSLS. 2014 Oct-Dec;18(4):null
pubmed: 25489216
Int J Surg. 2015 Sep;21:63-7
pubmed: 26207692
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Jan;18(1):19-36
pubmed: 26466751
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Jan;18(1):51-8
pubmed: 26603786
Dis Colon Rectum. 2016 Mar;59(3):201-7
pubmed: 26855394
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Dec;18(12):1162-1166
pubmed: 27110866
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Jun;20(6):369-374
pubmed: 27118465
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016 Jun;26(3):e37-40
pubmed: 27258914
Ann Surg. 2018 Feb;267(2):243-251
pubmed: 28549014
Ann Surg. 2017 Nov;266(5):878-883
pubmed: 28742696
JAMA. 2017 Oct 24;318(16):1569-1580
pubmed: 29067426
Surg Endosc. 2018 May;32(5):2312-2321
pubmed: 29098433
Br Med J. 1978 Jul 8;2(6130):85-8
pubmed: 667572
Ann Surg. 1995 Aug;222(2):120-7
pubmed: 7639579